BLM/AZ/PL-04/002





Proposed

Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment

For Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management

Environmental Assessment

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Arizona State Office

__________ 

March 2004

EA-AZ-910-2003-0001 

Prepared by

1551 Del Mar Circle

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83404

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the stewardship of our public lands. It is to manage, 

protect, and improve these lands in a manner to serve the needs of the American people for all times. 

Management is based on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield for our nationís resources within 

a framework of environmental responsibility and scientific technology. These resources include: recreation; 

rangelands; minerals; timber; watersheds; fish and wildlife; wilderness; air; and scenic, and cultural values.
i

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 1-1 

1.1 Need for the Plan Amendment ........................................................................................ 1-1 

1.1.1 National Fire Management Plan......................................................................... 1-1 

1.1.2 Comprehensive LUP Evaluation Results........................................................... 1-1 

1.1.3 Planning Area..................................................................................................... 1-1 

 1.2 Determining the Scope/Issues......................................................................................... 1-3 

 1.3 Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Planning Criteria......................................................... 1-3 

 1.4 Collaboration/Partnership Relationship........................................................................... 1-4 

 1.5 Existing LUP Decisions Being Amended ....................................................................... 1-4 

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................... 2-1 

 2.1 Alternative Resource Management Plans........................................................................ 2-1 

 2.2 Proposed Action .............................................................................................................. 2-1 

 2.2.1 Desired Future Conditions.................................................................................. 2-1 

 2.2.2 Land Use Allocations......................................................................................... 2-1 

 2.2.3 Management Actions.......................................................................................... 2-2 

 2.3 No Action Alternative ..................................................................................................... 2-6 

 2.4 Management Common to all Alternatives....................................................................... 2-7 

 2.5 Implementation and Monitoring.................................................................................... 2-15 

 2.5.1 Implementation................................................................................................. 2-15 

 2.5.2 Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 2-15 

 2.5.3 Administrative Actions..................................................................................... 2-15 

 2.5.4 Requirements for Further Environment Analysis............................................. 2-16 

 2.6 Interrelationships........................................................................................................... 2-16 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.................................................................................................... 3-1 

 3.1 Physical Environment...................................................................................................... 3-1 

 3.1.1 Air Resources..................................................................................................... 3-1 

 3.1.2 Soil Resources.................................................................................................... 3-2 

 3.1.3 Water Resources................................................................................................. 3-7 

 3.1.3.1 Surface Waters................................................................................... 3-7 

 3.1.3.2 Groundwater....................................................................................... 3-7 

 3.1.3.3 Water Quality..................................................................................... 3-7 

 3.2 Biological Environment .................................................................................................. 3-8 

 3.2.1 Vegetation Resources......................................................................................... 3-8 

 3.2.2 Fire Ecology ....................................................................................................... 3-8 

 3.2.3 Invasive and Noxious Weeds........................................................................... 3-14 

 3.2.4 Wild-Free Roaming Horses and Burros........................................................... 3-18 

 3.2.5 Fish and Wildlife Resources............................................................................. 3-18 

 3.2.6 Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species........................................................ 3-20 

 3.3 Social and Economic Environment ............................................................................... 3-21 

 3.3.1 Cultural and Paleontological Resources........................................................... 3-34 

 3.3.1.1 Prehistoric Resources....................................................................... 3-34 

 3.3.1.2 Historic Resources ........................................................................... 3-34 

 3.3.1.3 Places of Traditional Cultural Importance ....................................... 3-34 

 3.3.2 Paleontological Resources................................................................................ 3-34 

 3.3.3 Visual Resources.............................................................................................. 3-35 
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

 3.3.4 Special Designation Areas................................................................................ 3-35 

 3.3.4.1 Wilderness........................................................................................ 3-36 

 3.3.4.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers.................................................................... 3-36 

 3.3.4.3 National Monuments........................................................................ 3-37 

 3.3.4.4 National Conservation Areas ........................................................... 3-37 

 3.3.4.5 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)........................ 3-38 

 3.3.4.6 The National Trail............................................................................ 3-38 

 3.3.5 Land Uses......................................................................................................... 3-41 

 3.3.5.1 Grazing Management....................................................................... 3-41 

 3.3.5.2 Recreation ........................................................................................ 3-41 

 3.3.5.3 Forestry ............................................................................................ 3-41 

 3.3.5.4 Minerals ........................................................................................... 3-41 

 3.3.6 Socio-economic Conditions ............................................................................. 3-41 

 3.3.7 Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 3-43 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES................................................................................... 4-1 

 4.1 Air Resources.................................................................................................................. 4-1 

 4.1.1 No-Action Alternative........................................................................................ 4-3 

 4.1.2 Proposed Action Alternative .............................................................................. 4-3 

 4.2 Soil Resources................................................................................................................. 4-3 

 4.2.1 No-Action Alternative........................................................................................ 4-3 

 4.2.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 4-4 

 4.2.3 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................... 4-5 

 4.3 Water Resources.............................................................................................................. 4-6 

 4.3.1 No-Action Alternative........................................................................................ 4-6 

 4.3.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 4-6 

 4.4 Vegetation Resources...................................................................................................... 4-7 

 4.4.1 No-Action Alternative........................................................................................ 4-8 

 4.4.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 4-8 

 4.5 Fire Ecology .................................................................................................................... 4-9 

 4.5.1 No-Action Alternative........................................................................................ 4-9 

 4.5.2 Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 4-9 

 4.6 Invasive or Noxious Weeds........................................................................................... 4-10 

 4.6.1 No-Action Alternative...................................................................................... 4-10 

 4.6.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 4-11 

 4.7 Wild-Free Roaming Horses and Burros........................................................................ 4-11 

 4.7.1 No-Action Alternative...................................................................................... 4-11 

 4.7.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 4-12 

 4.8 Fish and Wildlife Resources.......................................................................................... 4-13 

 4.8.1 No-Action Alternative...................................................................................... 4-13 

 4.8.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 4-15 

 4.9 Special Status Plan and Wildlife Species...................................................................... 4-20 

 4.9.1 No-Action Alternative...................................................................................... 4-20 

 4.9.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 4-20 

4.9.3 Federal Species of Concern (Conservation Agreement Species and 

 Management Plan Species) .............................................................................. 4-24 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

 4.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources........................................................................ 4-27 

 4.10.1 No-Action Alternative...................................................................................... 4-27 

 4.10.1.1 Prehistoric/Historic Resources......................................................... 4-27 

4.10.1.2 Places of Traditional Cultural Importance ....................................... 4-27 

4.10.1.3 Paleontological Resources ............................................................... 4-27 

 4.10.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 4-27 

 4.10.3 Places of Traditional Cultural Importance ....................................................... 4-30 

 4.10.4 Paleontological Resources................................................................................ 4-30 

 4.11 Visual Resources........................................................................................................... 4-30 

 4.11.1 No-Action Alternative...................................................................................... 4-30 

 4.11.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 4-30 

 4.12 Special Designation Areas............................................................................................. 4-31 

 4.12.1 No-Action Alternative...................................................................................... 4-31 

 4.12.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 4-31 

 4.13 Land Uses...................................................................................................................... 4-32 

 4.13.1 No-Action Alternative...................................................................................... 4-32 

 4.13.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 4-32 

 4.14 Socio-Economic Conditions.......................................................................................... 4-33 

 4.14.1 No-Action Alternative...................................................................................... 4-33 

 4.14.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 4-34 

 4.15 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................... 4-34 

 4.15.1 No-Action Alternative...................................................................................... 4-34 

 4.15.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 4-34 

5.0 AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED..................................................................... 5-1 

 5.1 Agencies, Organizations and Individuals........................................................................ 5-1 

 5.2 List of Preparers.............................................................................................................. 5-1 

 5.2.1 Dynamac Corporation ........................................................................................ 5-1 

 5.2.2 BLM ID Team.................................................................................................... 5-1 

 5.2.1 Contributing Interdisciplinary Team Members.................................................. 5-2 

 5.3 BLM Response to Public Comment Letters Received .................................................... 5-2 

APPENDIX A ñ DETERMINING THE SCOPE PROCESS SUMMARY

APPENDIX B ñ APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, POLICIES AND PLANNING CRITERIA

APPENDIX C ñ VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE SPECIES

APPENDIX D ñ PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES

APPENDIX E ñ WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS

APPENDIX F ñ SPECIAL STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES

APPENDIX G ñ CULTURAL RESOURCES

APPENDIX H ñ SUMMARY OF THE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR THE BLM ARIZONA 

 STATEWIDE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR FIRE, FUELS, AND AIR

 QUALITY MANAGEMENT 

 

GLOSSARY

REFERENCES
iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 General Land Ownership in Arizona............................................................................... 1-2 

Table 2.1 Desired Future Conditions and Land Use Allocation for Vegetation Communities....... 2-3 

Table 2.2 Current Fire Management Zone Categories.................................................................... 2-8 

Table 2.3 Existing LUP Decisions Being Amended ....................................................................... 2-9 

Table 3.1 Arizona NAAQS Nonattainment Areas.......................................................................... 3-4 

Table 3.2 NAAQS Nonattainment Areas Within the Affected Environment ................................. 3-5 

Table 3.3 Distribution of Soil Suborders on BLM-Administered Land In Arizona........................ 3-5 

Table 3.4 General Characteristics of the Various Vegetation Communities on 

 BLM-Administered Land Throughout Arizona (after Brown 1982)............................. 3-11 

Table 3.5 Arizona Regulated and Restricted Noxious Weeds....................................................... 3-18 

Table 3.6 Federally Listed, Proposed, and Threatened Species in Arizona Considered in the

 Affected Environment for the Proposed Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment.......... 3-22 

Table 3.7 BLM and State Species of Concern In Arizona and California Considered in the 

 Planning for the Proposed Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment ............................... 3-29 

Table 3.8 National Register of Historic Places Listings on BLM-Administered Land 

 in Arizona...................................................................................................................... 3-33 

Table 3.9 Wilderness Areas and Acreage Amount per BLM Field Office ................................... 3-36 

Table 3.10 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in Arizona..................................... 3-39 

Table 3.11 Average Annual Number of Wildland Fires on BLM-Administered Lands 

 in Arizona...................................................................................................................... 3-43 

Table 4.1 Vegetation Cover Types Used in Air Quality Emission Analysis................................... 4-2 

Table 4.2 Average Emission Factors............................................................................................... 4-2 

Table 4.3 Percentage of Non-Fire Adapted Vegetation Supported on Soil Suborders on 

 BLM-Administered Land in Arizona .............................................................................. 4-4 

Table 4.4 Percentage of Fire Adapted Vegetation Supported on Soil Suborders on 

 BLM-Administered Land in Arizona .............................................................................. 4-4 

Table 4.5 Comparison Between the Annual Average Number and Burned Acres of

 Human-Caused and Lightening-Caused Fire on BLM Land in Arizona......................... 4-8 

Table 4.6 Types of Fuels Reduction Treatments on BLM Lands in 

 Arizona Since the Year 1990........................................................................................... 4-8 

Table 4.7 Summary of Effects for Protected Species in Arizona Considered in the Biological 

 Evaluation for the Proposed Action .............................................................................. 4-21 

Table 5.1 BLM Response to Public Comment Letters Received .................................................... 5-3 
v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Arizona BLM Planning Area........................................................................................... 1-2 

Figure 2.1 Land Use Allocation........................................................................................................ 2-5 

Figure 2.2 Current Fire Management Zone Categories.................................................................... 2-8 

Figure 3.1 Arizona Air Quality Nonattainment Areas...................................................................... 3-3 

Figure 3.2 Distribution of Soil Suborders and BLM-Administered Land in Arizona ...................... 3-6 

Figure 3.3 Surface Water Resources of Arizona, Showing Types and Locations of Surface 

 Waters and Riparian Areas.............................................................................................. 3-9 

Figure 3.4 Arizona Vegetation Communities................................................................................. 3-10 

Figure 3.5 Arizona Historical/Natural Fire Regime ....................................................................... 3-15 

Figure 3.6 Current Fire Regime in Arizona.................................................................................... 3-16 
vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACEC Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department 

BE Biological Evaluation 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CCC Civilian Conservation Corps 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FCR Field contact representative 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

FOFEM First Order Fire Effect Model

FY Fiscal Year 

HMA Herd Management Areas 

HMP Habitat Management Plans 

HA Herd Areas 

IC Incident Commander 

IMT Incident Management Team 

ITA Indian Trust Assets 

LUP Land Use Plans 

MFP Management Framework Plan 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NCA National Conservation Area 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOx Nitrogen oxides

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

O3 Ozone

OHV Off Highway Vehicles 

PM10 Ten microns or less

RMP Resource Management Plans 

RNCA Riparian National Conservation Area 

SAF Society of American Foresters 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

TCP Traditional cultural property 

TE&P Threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

VOC Volatile organic compounds 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WHB Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros 

WUI Wildland-Urban Interface 
1-1

Section 1 ñ Introduction

1.1 Need for the Plan 

Amendment

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Arizona 

State Office is amending its six Resource 

Management Plans (RMP; the Phoenix, Kingman, 

Arizona Strip, Safford, Yuma, and Lower Gila South 

RMPs) and one Management Framework Plan (MFP; 

the Lower Gila North MFP). These document, 

collectively known as Land Use Plans (LUPs), need 

to be amended to address todayís wildland fire 

management concerns and issues, including:

• Improved Public and Firefighter Safety from 

wildland fires on public lands;

• The use of fire as a management tool for 

achieving resource management objectives (such 

as restoring desirable vegetation, improving the 

health of desirable habitats, reducing competition 

from invasive species, and 

restoring/rehabilitating habitats consumed by 

wildfires), including the return of fire as a 

process to fire dependent ecosystems; 

• The management of hazardous fuel loads inside 

and outside the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) 

by the appropriate use of fire, mechanical, 

biological, and/or chemical treatments to reduce 

firefighter risk, decrease wildfire severity and 

intensity, and to restore more natural conditions 

to forest, rangeland, and woodland vegetative 

communities;

• Adaptive Fire Suppression Response Strategy.

Appropriate Management response, including 

managing natural fire starts for resource benefit, 

that will prioritize multiple fires and allow for 

change in suppression response requirements 

during these events; and

• Air Quality, and how it will be affected by the 

reintroduction of fire to the ecosystem as a 

natural process.

1.1.1 National Fire Management Plan 

In September 2000 the Secretaries of the 

Departments of Interior and Agriculture (DOI and 

DOA) prepared a report, Managing the Impact of 

Wildfires on Communities and the Environment: A 

Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires 

of 2000. As a result of the 2000 wildfire season and 

the report to the President, Congress provided 

substantial new appropriations and guidance in the 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act. The activities resulting from the 

Secretariesí report and the Congressional action are 

generally known as the National Fire Plan.1 The 2001 

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2001 

Federal Fire Policy)2

 provides a broad philosophical 

and policy foundation for federal agency fire 

management programs and activities, including those 

conducted under the National Fire Plan. The 2001 

Federal Fire Policy contained in this report is focused 

on internal federal agency strategic direction for a 

broad range of fire management related activities 

while the National Fire Plan is a more narrowly 

focused and tactical undertaking involving both 

federal and non-federal entities. A consistent 

approach to the incorporation of the National Fire 

Plan into LUPs is also a requirement for BLMadministered lands. The LUP amendment will be 

based upon the National Fire Plan and the 2001 

Federal Fire Policy.

1.1.2 Comprehensive LUP 

Evaluation Results 

In FY 2001, the BLM Arizona State Office evaluated 

the existing LUPs for its seven Field Offices and 

found that they have not kept pace with current fire 

management issues and policy, nor do they provide 

for interrelationships between fire management and 

other resources. The Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy has required all agencies to 

update and include aspects of fire management into 

their LUPs. The purpose of BLMís LUP amendment 

is to accomplish the required updates by 

incorporating adaptive fire management into all 

planning processes, and to provide a consistent 

approach to incorporating the National Fire Policy 

into LUPs. The current LUPs also do not meet 

BLMís goal of having a consistent approach to 

incorporating the National Fire Policy in land use 

plans. 

1.1.3 Planning Area

The BLM in Arizona is responsible for fire 

management on approximately 12 million acres of 

public lands consisting of 2 million acres of 

 

1 See National Fire Plan website at: www.fireplan.gov

2 The Federal Wildland Fire Policy can be found on the 

NIFC website at: www.nifc.gov
1-2

Ponderosa Pine, Pinion/Juniper woodlands, 10 

million acres of South West desert vegetation, and 

43,000 acres of riparian vegetation. The BLM has 7 

planning areas in Arizona, covering some 12 million 

acres of BLM-administered lands. The LUP 

amendment would amend those seven LUPs (six 

Resource Management Plans (RMPs) and one 

Management Framework Plan (MFP).

The Yuma RMP includes the Yuma Field Office 

(formerly the Yuma District) and a portion of the 

Havasu Field Office, and encompasses Yuma and La 

Paz Counties. The Kingman RMP includes the 

Kingman Field Office and a portion of the Havasu 

FO, and encompasses some 2.4 million acres of 

public lands in Mohave and Yavapai Counties. The 

Arizona Strip RMP encompasses one field office: the 

Arizona Strip FO located in St. George, Utah. The 

Arizona Strip FO is comprised of 2.8 million acres of 

land north of the Grand Canyon and south of the 

Utah State line, and manages lands within Mohave 

and Coconino Counties in Arizona. The Safford RMP 

includes a portion of the Tucson and Safford Field 

Offices. The Tucson FO manages some 800,000 

acres of public lands within Pinal and Santa Cruz 

Counties. The Safford FO contains 1.6 million acres 

within Graham, Greenlee, Cochise, Navajo, Apache, 

and Pinal counties. The Phoenix RMP covers the 

former Phoenix Resource Area within the Phoenix 

District (now the Phoenix Field Office) and includes 

a portion of the Phoenix, Tucson, and Safford Field 

Offices. The northern region encompasses Apache 

and Navajo Counties. The southern region includes 

most of Maricopa County, and all or parts of Gila, 

Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai. The major 

metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Tucson are 

included within the Phoenix RMP. The Lower Gila 

South RMP covers a portion of the Yuma and 

Phoenix Field Offices within La Paz, Maricopa, 

Pima, Pinal, and Yuma Counties. The Lower Gila 

North Management Framework Plan spans public 

lands within Yuma, Yavapai, and Maricopa Counties 

in the former Lower Gila Resource Area (now the 

Phoenix Field Office), and a portion of the Havasu 

Field Office. 

In addition to BLM-administered land, the planning 

area contains private, State and other land. Indian 

Trust Assets (ITAs) are lands, natural resources, 

money, or other tangible assets held by the Federal 

Government in trust or restricted against alienation 

for Indian tribes and individual Indians. The 

Proposed Action is not likely to affect ITAs in the 

State of Arizona. As with many western states, a 

significant portion of the lands in Arizona are public 

lands administered by the Federal government, 

including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

Forest Service, and National Park Service. Table 1.1 

provides the general ownership of lands in Arizona.

Table 1.1 ñ General Land Ownership in Arizona

Acres Percent of Total

Bureau of Land Management 12,296,000 16.5%

Other Federal Agencies 18,704,000 25.6%

State of Arizona 9,335,000 12.8%

Indian Trust 19,910,000 27.3%

Private 12,982,000 17.8%

Figure 1.1
1-3

1.2 Determining the 

Scope/Issues

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to initiate the planning 

effort was published in the Federal Register on 

January 27, 2003. To ensure that the most appropriate 

measures of managing fire in Arizona are selected 

from numerous options and alternatives, public input 

into the LUP Amendment process was essential from 

the beginning planning stages and throughout the 

planning process. 

A Public Involvement Plan was also prepared to 

manage and ensure effective, consistent, open 

communication process between BLM, other federal 

agencies, state and local government agencies, Native 

American tribes, universities and research entities, 

the public, and other stakeholding parties. 

In March 2003, BLM conducted eight Open House 

meetings in Phoenix, Safford, Tucson, Flagstaff, 

Yuma, Lake Havasu City, Kingman, and St. George, 

Utah (the location of the BLM field office for the 

Arizona Strip). These meetings were announced in 

the first Planning Bulletin, mailed in February 2003 

to more than 3,500 individuals and organizations 

throughout the state. News releases were issued to 

state and local media, and advertisements were 

placed in most major newspapers. More than 100 

people attended at least one of the meetings. 

Issues or concerns on the following topics were 

expressed by meeting attendees: Coordination with 

other agencies and/or National Monuments; support 

for using fire to manage ecosystems, including 

prescribed fire or allowing naturally-occurring fire 

cycles with minimal suppression efforts; WUI fires 

and the cost of fire prevention; hazardous fuel 

loadings; environmental impacts to air and water 

quality, and mature trees from logging; invasive 

species such as tamarisk; fire as a threat to cultural, 

archeological, and historical resources; impact of 

fires on livestock forage availability and grazing, as 

to do so would take a grave toll on the health of 

public lands and wildlife. 

Potential issues not raised by the public include 

impacts to soil resources, wild horses and burros, or 

socio-economic impacts of wildland fire. Also, no 

questions were raised in regards to BLMís LUP 

amendment process, compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 

Environmental Assessment (EA) process being 

followed, or the schedule for the LUP amendment 

and Environmental Assessment, and no alternatives 

were raised to the preferred alternative. Additional 

details on the public involvement meetings is 

provided in Appendix A, Determining the Scope 

Process Summary 

1.3 Laws, Regulations, 

Policies, and Planning Criteria 

The BLM planning process is governed by the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1711) and the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) contained in 43 CFR Part 1600. 

Land Use Plans ensure that the public lands are 

managed in accordance with the intent of Congress as 

stated in FLPMA, under the principles of multiple 

use and sustained yield. As required by FLPMA, the 

public lands must be managed in a manner that 

protects the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, 

ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water 

resource, and archeological values; that, where 

appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public 

lands in their natural condition, that will provide food 

and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic 

animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation 

and human occupancy and use by encouraging 

collaboration and public participation throughout the 

planning process. In addition, the public lands must 

be managed in a manner that recognizes the Nationís 

need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, 

and fiber from the public lands. 

Land use plans are the primary mechanism for 

guiding BLM activities to achieve the mission and 

goals outlined in the BLM Strategic Plan. BLMís 

Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) contains 

implementation guidance. BLMís Land Use 

Planning Handbook, Appendix C (Program-Specific 

and Resource-Specific Decision Guidance), Part 1 

(Natural, Biological and Cultural Resources), 

Paragraph J (Fire Management), also contains 

specific guidance on fire management in LUPs.

The Presidentís Council on Environmental Quality's 

(CEQs) regulations for implementing NEPA (Title 40 

CFR Parts 1500-1508) detail the process of preparing 

Environmental Assessments (EAs). This CEQ 

guidance and BLMís own internal guidance for 

conducting an EA-level analysis were followed in the 

preparation of this document. BLMís National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Handbook (H1790-1) contains BLM guidance for preparation of an 

EA-level analysis. 

On November 13, 2001, BLMís National Director 

issued Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-034, 

providing guidance regarding the Federal Wildland 

Fire Management Policy and the treatment of 

wildland fire management in LUPs. The Instruction 
1-4

Memorandum directs BLMís LUPs to be amended to 

meet current fire management policy. 

In addition, there are other cross-cutting 

environmental laws and Executive Orders that may 

be affected by an agencyís action, and they have been 

considered. These authorities include (but are not 

limited to) the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Endangered Species 

Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the 

Archaeological Resource Protection Act, and such 

Executive Orders as EO 11593, "Protection and 

Enhancement of the Cultural Environment," and EO 

12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations." Additional information is provided in 

Appendix B, Applicable Laws, Regulations, Policies 

and Planning Criteria.

1.4 Collaboration/Partnership 

Relationship

As part of the processes to determine the projectís 

scope, agency coordination and notification, BLM 

took actions to inform and obtain input from all other 

Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies about this 

LUP amendment project, the schedule, and the steps 

being taken to complete the project. Agencies were 

given the opportunity to participate and comment. 

In January and February 2003, letters were sent by 

the BLM, Deputy State Director, to Arizona Federal, 

State, and County agencies, and to Tribal contacts. 

These letters provided background information on 

BLMís statewide fire, fuels and air quality LUP 

amendment process, and invited them to attend one 

or more of the public meetings or to contact BLM if 

they would like a separate meeting. Additionally, 

tribal representatives were contacted to obtain 

information on potential issues and concerns they 

might have. All information obtained was fully 

considered in the LUP amendment and NEPA 

processes.

Under a separate but related project, the BLM has 

arranged for The Nature Conservancy (TNC), a nonprofit conservation organization, to review and 

provide an independent, scientific evaluation of the 

ecological validity of BLMís existing fire 

management polygons. TNCís efforts will directly 

support BLMís update of its Fire Management Plans.

1.5 Existing LUP Decisions 

That Would Be Amended 

BLMís seven existing LUPs contain some Desired 

Future Conditions, Land Use Allocations, and 

Management Actins pertaining to fire and fuels 

management, vegetation, and other resources. Some 

of these decisions are inconsistent with new fire 

management issues and policies. Table 2.3, ìExisting 

LUP Decisions,î lists existing decisions that would 

be modified by the Proposed Action. 
2-1 

 

Section 2.0 Description of Alternatives

2.1 Alternative Resource 

Management Plans

The primary goal is to incorporate new management 

direction that integrates fire and fuels management 

with other management activities to benefit both 

natural resources and multiple-uses on BLMadministered public lands throughout Arizona. Table 

2.1 compares the average annual level of fire 

management activity under the Proposed Action and 

the No Action Alternative. 

2.2 Proposed Action 

The proposed action is to amend BLMís seven 

existing Land Use Plans (LUPs) to update the plans 

to comply with current fire policy and guidance and 

to fully integrate fire and fuels management and 

direction found in the latest DOI and BLM resource 

program guidance for lands administered by BLM. 

The LUP Amendment would establish Desired 

Future Conditions, Land Use Allocations, and 

Management Actions, and would amend existing 

LUP decisions concerning fire, fuels and air quality 

management. The LUP Amendment would include 

use of fire and other vegetative treatments as tools to 

achieve resource management objectives. Fire 

management in the amended LUPs would also 

include adaptive management for wildfire; allow fire 

to resume a more natural ecological role within each 

ecosystem; the use of prescribed fire; and 

mechanical, chemical or biological treatments to 

meet resource objectives and reduce hazardous fuels 

on public lands inside and outside Wildland-Urban 

Interface (WUI) areas.

The objective of the proposed action is to manage fire 

and fuels according to the current policies and 

requirements (as discussed in Sections 1.1.1. and 1.3) 

and to meet desired future conditions for those and 

other resources. Fire management objectives would 

be developed and coordinated from resource 

management objectives. The utilization of prescribed 

fire, mechanical, biological, and chemical fuels 

treatments combined with fire suppression and 

rehabilitation would be the tools fire management 

would use to achieve the resource objectives. 

2.2.1 Desired Future Conditions

The Proposed Action would establish the following 

Desired Future Conditions: 

• Fire is recognized as a natural process in fireadapted ecosystems and is used to achieve 

objectives for other resources; 

• Fuels in WUI areas are maintained at nonhazardous levels to provide for public and fire 

fighter safety;

• Prescribed fire activities comply with Federal 

and State air quality regulations;

• Each vegetation community is maintained within 

its natural range of variation in plant 

composition, structure, and function, and fuel 

loads are maintained below levels that are 

considered to be hazardous (Table 2.1; see 

Appendix C for additional information for each 

vegetation community). 

2.2.2 Land Use Allocations

Under the Proposed Action, BLM-administered 

public lands would be assigned to one of the 

following two land use allocations for fire 

management (Table 2.1): 

Allocation 1 ñ Wildland Fire Use:

Areas suitable for wildland fire use for resource 

management benefit.

Areas where wildland fire is desired, and there are 

few or no constraints for its use. Where conditions 

are suitable, unplanned and planned wildfire may be 

used to achieve desired objectives, such as to 

improve vegetation, wildlife habitat or watershed 

conditions, maintain non-hazardous levels of fuels, 

reduce the hazardous effects of unplanned wildland 

fires and meet resource objectives. Where fuel 

loading is high but conditions are not initially 

suitable for wildland fire, fuel loads are reduced by 

mechanical, chemical or biological means to reduce 

hazardous fuels levels and meet resource objectives 

(includes WUI areas).
2-2 

 

Allocation 2 ñ Non Wildland Fire Use:

Areas not suitable for wildland fire use for 

resource benefit. 

This allocation includes areas where mitigation and 

suppression are required to prevent direct threats to 

life or property. It includes areas where fire never 

played a large role, historically, in the development 

and maintenance of the ecosystem, and some areas 

where fire return intervals were very long It also 

includes areas (including some WUI areas) where an 

unplanned ignition could have negative effects to the 

ecosystem unless some form of mitigation takes 

place. Mitigation may include mechanical, 

biological, chemical, or prescribed fire means to 

maintain non-hazardous levels of fuels, reduce the 

hazardous effects of unplanned wildland fires and 

meet resource objectives.

The allocation of lands is based on the desired future 

condition of vegetation communities, ecological 

conditions and ecological risks. The allocation of

lands is determined by contrasting current and 

historical conditions and ecological risks associated 

with any changes (Figure 2.1). The condition class 

concept helps describe alterations in key ecosystem 

components such as species composition, structural

stage, stand age, canopy closure, and fuel loadings. 

BLM Fire Management Plans1

, will include the two 

allocations and identify areas for including fire use, 

mechanical, biological or chemical means to maintain 

non-hazardous levels of fuels, reduce the hazardous 

effects of unplanned wildland fires and meet resource 

objectives. They will also identify areas for exclusion 

from fire (through fire suppression), chemical, 

mechanical, and/or biological treatments.

2.2.3 Management Actions

In areas not suitable for fire, BLM will implement 

programs to reduce unwanted ignitions, and 

emphasize prevention, detection, and rapid 

suppression response techniques. 

In areas not suitable for fire where fuel loading is 

high, BLM will utilize biological, mechanical or 

chemical treatments, and some prescribed fire to 

maintain non-hazardous levels of fuels and meet 

resource objectives.

 

1

 BLMís fire management program in Arizona is divided 

into four fire zones each with its own fire staff and fire 

management plan. The four zones are: Arizona Strip 

(ASFZ), Phoenix/Kingman (PKFZ), Safford/Tucson 

(STFZ), and Yuma/Lake Havasu (YHFZ). The ASFZ and 

the YHFZ are interagency in organizational makeup. The 

ASFZ is combined with the Dixie National Forest, Pine 

Valley Ranger District. The STFZ and PKFZ are BLM 

zones only.

In areas suitable for fire where fuel loading is high 

and current conditions constrain fire use, BLM will 

emphasize prevention and mitigation programs to 

reduce unwanted fire ignitions, and use mechanical, 

biological or chemical treatments to mitigate the fuel 

loadings and meet resource objectives. 

In areas suitable for fire where conditions allow, 

BLM will allow naturally ignited wildland fire, use 

prescribed fire and a combination of biological, 

mechanical and chemical treatments to maintain nonhazardous levels of fuels, reduce the hazardous 

effects of unplanned wildland fires and meet resource 

objectives.

In areas suitable for fire, BLM will monitor existing 

air quality levels and weather conditions to determine 

which prescribed fires can be ignited and which, if 

any, must be delayed to ensure that air quality meets 

federal and state standards. If air quality approaches 

unhealthy levels BLM will delay igniting prescribed 

fires.

In addition to both allocations, to reduce human 

caused fires, BLM will undertake education, 

enforcement and administrative fire prevention 

mitigation measures. Education measures will 

include various media information including a 

signing program, information as to the natural role of 

fire within local ecosystems, participation in fairs, 

parades and public contacts. Enforcement will be 

accomplished by providing training opportunities for 

employees interested in fire cause determination. 

Administration includes expanded prevention and 

education programs with other cooperator agencies.

For all fire management activities (wildfire 

suppression, appropriately managed wildfire use, 

prescribed fire, and mechanical, chemical, and 

biological vegetation treatments), Conservation 

Measures will be implemented as part of the 

Proposed Action to provide statewide consistency in 

reducing the effects of fire management actions on 

Federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and 

candidate (ìFederally protectedî) species ( Appendix 

D).
2-3 

 

Table 2.1 ñ Desired Future Conditions and Land Use Allocation for Vegetation Communities

Vegetation 

Community 

Type

Approximate 

Acreage Desired Future Conditions Land Use Allocation

Upland Sonoran 

Desert Scrub

3,280,602 acres The Desired Future Conditions are for an adequate cover 

and mix of natural plant species that have good vigor. In 

terms of fire management and fire ecology, the Desired 

Future Conditions are for fire to control or reduce the 

exotic annual weeds such as red brome and to limit woody 

vegetation to non-hazardous levels. 

2

Lower Sonoran 

Desert Scrub

2,727,540 acres The Desired Future Conditions are for an adequate cover 

and mix of natural plant species that have good vigor. In 

terms of fire management and fire ecology, the Desired 

Future Conditions are for fire to control or reduce the 

exotic annual weeds such as red brome and to limit woody 

vegetation to non-hazardous levels. 

2 

Great Basin 

Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland

1,533,012 acres The Desired Future Conditions are that annual weeds such 

as cheatgrass are controlled, ladder fuels and downed 

woody debris are limited or not present, and juniper and 

piÒon pine tree densities and cover occur at their historic 

range of variation. 

1 

Mohave Desert 

Scrub

1,165,687 acres The Desired Future Conditions are for an adequate cover 

and mix of natural plant species that have good vigor. In 

terms of fire management and fire ecology, the Desired 

Future Conditions are for fire to control or reduce the 

exotic annual weeds such as red brome and to limit woody 

vegetation to non-hazardous levels.

2 

Great Basin 

Desert Scrub

1,058,401 acres The Desired Future Conditions are for fire to naturally 

reduce annual weed densities and cover, limit or reduce 

the invasion of juniper, and for the densities of shrubs, 

such as big sagebrush, to be maintained within their 

historic range of variability.

1 

Plains and Great 

Basin Grasslands

747,509 acres The Desired Future Conditions are for a predominance of 

perennial grass cover, reduced cover of annual grasses, 

and for fire to naturally inhibit the invasion of woody 

shrubs such as rabbitbrush, snakeweed, and big sagebrush.

1 

Semidesert 

Grassland

757,668 acres The Desired Future Conditions are for perennial grasses to 

cover its historic range of variability, annual grass cover is 

reduced, and fire naturally inhibits the invasion of woody 

plants such as juniper, tarbush, whitethorn, and 

creosotebush. 

1 

Interior 

Chaparral

425,287 acres The Desired Future Conditions are that fire naturally 

maintains shrub cover while reducing annual grass cover, 

the invasion of woody plants such as juniper and piÒon 

pine are controlled, and the average age of chaparral 

stands is reduced through controlled fire or mechanical 

treatment.

1 

Chihuahuan 

Desert Scrub

447,398 acres The Desired Future Conditions are for an adequate cover 

and mix of natural plant species that have good vigor. In 

terms of fire management and fire ecology, the Desired 

Future Conditions are for fire to control or reduce the 

exotic annual weeds such as red brome and to limit woody 

vegetation to non-hazardous levels. 

2 
2-4 

 

Vegetation 

Community 

Type

Approximate 

Acreage Desired Future Conditions Land Use Allocation

Riparian 176,927 acres The Desired Future Conditions are that annual weed cover 

and density is controlled and ladder fuels and downed 

woody debris are limited or not present. Disturbances such 

as livestock grazing, mining, and off road vehicle travel, 

that can potentially reduce natural vegetation cover and 

vigor, are managed to maintain adequate cover and mix of 

natural plant species.

2 

Madrean 

Evergreen 

Woodland

67,731 acres The Desired Future Conditions are that annual weeds such 

as red brome and buffle grass are controlled, ladder fuels 

and downed woody debris are limited or not present, a 

high percent of large trees are maintained, and tree stand 

vigor is maintained through controlled fire and mechanical 

treatments.

1 

Montane Conifer 

Forest

19,067 acres The Desired Future Conditions are that ìdog -hair thicketsî 

are controlled, ladder fuels and downed woody debris are 

limited or not present, a high percent of large trees are 

maintained, and tree stand vigor is maintained through 

controlled fire and mechanical treatments.

1 

Land Use Allocation 1: Wildland Fire Use; Areas suitable for wildland fire use for resource management benefit

Land Use Allocation 2: Non Wildland Fire Use; Areas that are not suitable for wildland fire use for resource benefit. 

Conservation Measures noted as ìRecommendedî are 

discretionary for implementation, but are 

recommended to help minimize effects to Federally 

protected species. Procedures within the Interagency 

Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations 

2003, including future updates, relevant to fire 

operations that may affect Federally protected species 

or their habitat are incorporated here by reference.2

Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in 

every fire management activity. Setting priorities 

among protecting human communities and 

community infrastructure, other property and 

improvements, and natural and cultural resources 

must be based on the values to be protected, human 

health and safety, and costs of protection (2001 

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy). 

However, implementing the following Conservation 

Measures during fire suppression to the extent 

possible, and during the proposed fire management 

activities as required, would minimize or eliminate 

the effects to Federally protected species and 

habitats.

During fire suppression actions, Resource Advisors 

may be designated to coordinate concerns regarding 

Federally protected species, and to serve as a liaison 

 

2 BLM, NPS, USFWS, USFS. 2003. Interagency 

Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations 2003. 

These standards can be found at: www.fire.blm.gov/ 

Standards/redbook.htm (Note: This document is updated 

annually. For BLM, this document is Handbook 9213-1).

between the Field Office Manager and the Incident 

Commander/Incident Management Team. They will

also serve as a field contact representative (FCR) 

responsible for coordination with the USFWS. The 

Resource Advisors will have the necessary 

information on Federally protected species and 

habitats in the area and the available Conservation 

Measures for the species. They will be briefed on the 

intended suppression actions for the fire, and will 

provide input on which Conservation Measures are 

appropriate, within the standard constraints of safety 

and operational procedures. The Incident 

Commander has the final decision-making authority 

on implementation of Conservation Measures during 

fire suppression operations.

Because of the number of species located within the 

action area for proposed Statewide LUP Amendment, 

combined with a variety of fire suppression and 

proposed fire management activities, conflicts may 

occur in attempting to implement all Conservation 

Measures for every species potentially affected by a 

particular activity. Implementing these Conservation 

Measures effectively would depend on the number of 

Federally protected species and their individual life 

history or habitat requirements within a particular 

location that is being affected by either fire 

suppression or a proposed fire management activity. 

2-6 

 

This would be particularly true for timing restrictions 

on fuels treatment activities, if the ranges of several 

species with differing restrictions overlap, making 

effective implementation of the activity 

unachievable. Resource Advisors (in coordination 

with the USFWS), Fire Management Officers or 

Incident Commanders, and other resource specialists 

would need to coordinate to determine which 

Conservation Measures would be implemented 

during a particular activity. If Conservation 

Measures for a species cannot be implemented, BLM 

would be required to initiate Section 7 consultation 

with the USFWS for that particular activity.

BLM will update their local Fire Management Plans 

to include site-specific actions for managing wildfire 

and fuels in accordance with the new Federal fire 

policies, based on guidance provided in the Decision 

Records for this Statewide LUP Amendment. These 

plans will be coordinated with the USFWS and the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) to 

address site-specific concerns for Federally protected 

species. These plans will incorporate the 

Conservation Measures included in this Statewide 

LUP Amendment for Federally protected species 

occurring within each Fire Management Zone. 

Consultation with the USFWS will occur with these 

project-level plans, as necessary.

Special Designation Areas

For all fire management activities in National 

Monuments and National Conservation Areas, 

measures will be taken to assure that no adverse 

effects occur to those resources, values, and objects 

identified in the respective proclamations or 

legislation as reasons for establishing the area.

In Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and 

areas being managed for wilderness characteristics 

according to LUPs, when suppression actions are 

required, minimum impact suppression tactics 

(MIST, Interagency Standards for Fire Operations, 

2003) would be applied and coordinated with 

Wilderness Area management objectives and 

guidelines

Fire management activities along National Historic 

Trails will be conducted to assure no adverse effects 

occur to those resources and values identified in the 

legislation designating the trail.

Fire management efforts along river segments 

recommended as eligible for designation under the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act should utilize those 

measures that avoid adversely affecting the identified 

outstandingly remarkable values that qualify the 

rivers for designation.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

and Backcountry Byways are established in land use 

plans. The desired conditions and management 

prescriptions for these special areas will be 

considered in implementing fire management 

activities.

2.3 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, BLM-administered 

public lands would be assigned to one of the 

following four fire management categories:

Category A: Areas where fire is not desired at all.

This category includes areas where mitigation and 

suppression are required to prevent direct threats to 

life or property. It also includes areas where fire 

never played a large role historically in the 

development and maintenance of the ecosystem, and 

some areas where fire return intervals were very long. 

Category B: Areas where unplanned wildfire is not 

desired because of current conditions. These are 

ecosystems (including some WUI areas) where an 

unplanned ignition could have negative effects 

unless/until some form of mitigation takes place.

Category C: Areas where wildland fire is desired, 

but there are significant constraints that must be 

considered for its use. Areas where significant 

ecological, social or political constraints (such as air 

quality, threatened and endangered species, or 

wildlife habitat considerations) limit wildland fire. 

Category D: Areas where wildland fire is desired, 

and there are few or no constraints for its use. 

Areas where unplanned and planned wildfire may be 

used to achieve desired objectives such as to improve 

vegetation, wildlife habitat or watershed conditions.

Under the No Action Alternative, the LUPs would 

not be amended and existing fire management 

direction would be continued as described in Table 

2.3. Existing fire management direction is for BLM 

to aggressively suppress fires to protect other 

resources in areas without approved Fire 

Management Plans or in areas with Fire Management 

Plans that are not consistent with the 2001 Federal 

Fire Policy. Table 2.2 lists current Fire Management 

categories for each Field Office. Figure 2.2 depicts 

the categories state-wide. No FO has any lands 

designated as Category D, ìAreas where wildland 

fire is desired, and there are few or no constraints for 

its use.î Under the No Action Alternative, fire would 
2-7 

 

not be consistently managed by BLM across Arizona. 

Areas where unplanned and planned wildfire may be 

used to achieve desired objectives such as to improve 

vegetation, wildlife habitat or watershed conditions.

2.4 Management Common to 

all Alternatives 

There are several treatment methods and Standard 

Operating Procedures that would be used in a 

vegetation treatment program. BLM policies and 

guidance for public land treatments would be 

followed in implementing all treatment methods. 

Many guidelines are provided in manual Section 

1740, BLM Arizona's Standards for Rangeland 

Health, Programmatic documents such as BLMís 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vegetation 

Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States 

(May 1991), and other general and specific program 

policy, procedures, and standards pertinent to 

implementation of renewable resource improvements. 

In Arizona, BLM manages designated Wilderness 

Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, and areas managed 

for wilderness characteristics that are identified in an 

approved land use plan. Guidelines and operating 

procedures for fire management activities in 

Wilderness Areas are provided in BLM Manual 

8560, Management of Designated Wilderness Areas, 

and in Wilderness Management Plans, where 

completed for specific Wilderness Areas (Table 3.9). 

Fire management guidance for Wilderness Study 

Areas is provided in BLM Manual 8550, Interim 

Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review. Approved land use plans specify 

fire management procedures for areas identified in 

the land use plan to be managed for wilderness 

characteristics.

The following manual, chemical, mechanical, 

biological and fire treatment methods would be used 

for all alternatives. 

Manual

Hand-operated power tools and hand tools are used in 

manual vegetation treatment to cut, clear, or prune 

herbaceous and woody species. In manual 

treatments, workers would cut plants above ground 

level; pull, grub, or dig out plant root systems to 

prevent subsequent sprouting and regrowth; scalp at 

ground level or remove competing plants around 

desired vegetation; or place mulch around desired 

vegetation to limit the growth of competing 

vegetation. Hand tools such as the handsaw, axe, 

shovel, rake, machete, grubbing hoe, mattock 

(combination of axe and grubbing hoe), brush hook, 

and hand clippers are used in manual treatments. 

Axes, shovels, grubbing hoes, and mattocks can dig 

up and cut below the surface to remove the main root 

of plants such as prickly pear and mesquite that have 

roots that can quickly resprout in response to surface 

cutting or clearing. Workers also may use power 

tools such as chain saws and power brush saws. 

Mechanical

Mechanical methods of vegetation treatment employ 

several different types of equipment to suppress, 

inhibit, or control herbaceous and woody vegetation 

(Vallentine 1980). The goal of mechanical treatments 

is to kill or reduce the cover of undesirable vegetation 

and thus encourage the growth of desirable plants. 

BLM uses wheel tractors, crawler-type tractors, 

mowers, or specially designed vehicles with attached 

implements for mechanical vegetation treatments. 

The use of mechanical equipment to reduce fuel 

hazards will be conducted in accordance with BLM 

established procedures. Re-seeding after a 

mechanical treatment has been applied is important to 

help insure that desirable plants will become 

established on the site and not weedy species. The 

mechanical treatment and reseeding should occur at a 

time to best control the undesirable vegetation and 

encourage the establishment of desirable vegetation. 

The best mechanical method for treating undesired 

plants in a particular location depends on the 

following factors:

(1) Characteristics of the undesired species present 

such as plant density stem size, woodiness, 

brittleness, and re-sprouting ability;

(2) Need for seedbed preparation, re-vegetation, and 

improve water infiltration rates; 

(3) Topography and terrain; 

(4) Soil characteristics such as type, depth, amount 

and size of rocks, erosion potential, and 

susceptibility to compaction; 

(5) Climatic and seasonal conditions; 

(6) Potential cost of improvement as compared to 

expected results.

Bulldozing consists of a wheeled or crawler tractor 

with a heavy hydraulic controlled blade. Vegetation 

is pushed over and uprooted and then left in 

windrows or piles. Bulldozing is best adapted to 

removing scattered stands of large brush or trees. 

There are several different kinds of blades available 

depending of the type of vegetation and goals of the 
2-8 

 

Table 2.2 ñ Current Fire Management Zone Categories

Field Office Category

Number of Fire 

Management Polygons

Approximate

Acres Percent

A 4 626,850 23%

B 2 34,880 1%

C 6 2,099,550 76%

Arizona Strip

D 0 0 0%

A 1 2,056,660 84%

B 1 98,540 4%

C 2 301,840 12%

Kingman

D 0 0 0%

A 5 1,325,150 99%

B 0 0 0%

C 0 0 0%

D 0 0 0%

Lake Havasu

Unclassified 1 13,060 1%

A 2 2,306,840 94%

B 1 56,950 2%

C 1 84,200 3%

D 0 0 0%

Phoenix

Unclassified 1 160 <.01%

A 2 223,470 14%

B 2 97,310 6%

C 2 163,120 10%

B, C1 2 152,500 10%

A, B, D1 1 916,330 59%

D 0 0 0%

Safford

Unclassified 1 6,670 0.4%

A 1 320,550 52%

B 1 130,790 21%

B, C1 2 131,990 22%

C, D1 1 27,510 5%

C 0 0 0%

Tucson

D 0 0 0%

A 7 1,342,770 100%

B 0 0 0%

C 0 0 0%

Yuma

D 0 0 0%

Total Not Applicable 49 12,517,690 Not Applicable

1

 Multiple categories denote a fire management polygon that contains land with a different category within it. 

2-10 

 

Table 2.3 ñExisting LUP Decisions

KINGMAN RMP

Resource Area Decision 

Number Decision

FM01/C2 Implement and propose revision of the Phoenix District Fire Management Activity 

Plan to meet specific Kingman Resource Area needs

FM02/C2 Use prescribed fire to achieve management objectives where suitable

FM03/C3 Adhere to conditions that restrict or constrain fire suppression activities on public 

lands.

Fire Management

FM04/C3 Prepare site specific emergency fire rehabilitation plans, as needed, using an 

interdisciplinary team.

Vegetative Products 

Management

VP01/B2 Develop Fuelwood Management Plan

Watershed Management WS06/C2 Identify areas for potential vegetation treatment

YUMA RMP

F-1 Fires on or threatening public lands will be suppressed in accordance with BLM fire 

policy, initial attack agreements with other government agencies, and approved 

modified fire suppression plans.

Fire Management

F-2 Prescribed burning will continue to be used in support of resource management 

objectives where warranted.

Vegetation Management V-2 Whenever practical, impacts to vegetation from construction, recreation, and other 

activities will be mitigated through avoidance, use of the minimum reasonable and 

practical tools and equipment, minimizing disturbance to the extent practical, and 

by soil stabilization and vegetative rehabilitation or revegetation where feasible. 

Where plants and parts of plants will be destroyed as an unavoidable impact, 

reasonable efforts will be made to salvage useable plants and parts of plants for 

commercial or public use.

Resource Area Decision 

Number Decision

SAFFORD RMP

VM02 Upland vegetation on public lands within the Safford District will be managed for 

watershed protection, livestock use, reduction of non-point source pollution, 

Threatened and Endangered species protection, priority wildlife habitat, firewood 

and other incidental human uses. Best management practices and vegetation 

manipulation will be used to achieve desired plant community management 

objectives. Treatments may include various mechanical, chemical and prescribed 

fire methods.

VM07 Land treatments (vegetation manipulation) will be used to decrease invading woody 

plants and increase grasses and forbs for wildlife, watershed condition, and 

livestock. Treatment areas will be identified in activity plans. Treatments may 

include various artificial (mechanical, chemical, or prescribed fire) methods.

VM08 The following actions will be implemented to accomplish the land treatment 

objective. a) Implement those best management practices and methods that will 

increase vegetation cover and decrease soil erosion and non-point source pollution 

to streams from sedimentation. b) Study the methods and effects of reducing rodent 

and rabbit populations on selected upland areas to improve vegetation cover.

VM10 Evaluate other areas suitable for firewood harvest. Permit the harvest of up to 500 

cords of firewood per year from public lands District-wide. Do not allow cutting in 

major desert washes, wilderness areas, or some special management areas.

Vegetation Management

VM114 Land treatments such as imprinting and seeding, chaining or fire could be

implemented on approximately 75,000 acres to enhance rangeland values, 

watershed conditions, and wildlife habitat.

WF17 Develop prescribed burning plans in fire-dependent vegetation communities to 

improve habitat conditions for priority wildlife species.

Wildlife/Fisheries

WF18 Suppress wildfire in sensitive vegetation communities (like paloverde/saguaro) to 

reduce the detrimental effects on priority wildlife dependent on those communities.

Watershed WS36 Conduct prescribed fire with prior approval of the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality.
2-11 

 

PHOENIX RMP

Fire Management A Maintain full fire suppression in all areas.

B Special Management Area plans will identify areas where prescribed burning would 

benefit wildlife, watershed and rangeland resources.

Eastern Arizona Grazing 

EIS

Land treatments such as imprinting and seeding, chaining or fire could be 

implemented to enhance rangeland values, watershed conditions, and wildlife 

habitat.

ARIZONA STRIP RMP

Full suppression activities will be initiated in the four desert ACECs. BLM will 

suppress wildfires with minimum surface disturbance, in accordance with the 

guidelines in Duck et al (1994) and appropriate biological opinions.

BLM will pre-position suppression forces in critical areas during periods of high 

fire danger.

Fire Management

BLM will require a resource advisor on all wildfires in tortoise ACECs. 

Firefighters and support personnel will be provided with a briefing on tortoises and 

their habitat as soon as practical, which will focus on minimizing take of listed 

species, particularly take due to vehicle use. On-road travel will be restricted to the 

minimum necessary to suppress wildfires. Whenever practicable, individuals 

trained to recognize tortoises and their shelter sites will precede any vehicle 

traveling off-road. Use of tracked vehicles will be restricted to extreme cases. 

Camps, staging areas, and helispots will be surveyed for tortoises prior to use 

whenever feasible; camps will be established within previously disturbed areas 

whenever practicable; personnel will avoid active tortoise shelter sites.

Resource Area Decision 

Number Decision

BLM will obliterate tracks where they leave roads to reduce future use.

Use of foam or retardant is authorized.

BLM will take appropriate action to suppress all wildfires based on pre-planned 

analysis consistent with land management objectives, including threats to life and 

property. Backfiring operations will be permitted where necessary. Burning-out of 

unburned fingers and islands will not be permitted.

Forest and Woodland FW08 Protect forests from catastrophic fires while managing prescribed burns or naturally 

occurring fires within established prescriptions to reduce fuel buildup, maintain 

healthy species composition and benefit wildlife habitat, watershed cover and 

livestock forage.

Grazing Management GZ06 Continue implementing the grazing management program as described in the 

Grazing Environmental Impact Statements that specify grazing systems, 

management facilities and land treatments, provided they are consistent with other 

RMP decisions. Practices used to accomplish this include mechanical treatment, 

herbicide applications, biological treatments, prescribed fire, reseeding and 

construction of water control structures. Use of pesticides are prescribed, as 

appropriate to control insects, such as grasshoppers, crickets, etc.

LOWER GILA SOUTH RMP

None

LOWER GILA NORTH MFP

D-11 By 1987, develop fire management plans that coincide with established resource 

objectives to include protection from wildfire, introduction of prescribed fire and 

modification of normal suppression actions.

D-16 Develop a fire management program in coordination with the rangeland 

management program that would include identification of modified suppression 

areas, intensive control areas, and areas where controlled burning would be 

beneficial.

D-17 Develop a fire management program to protect riparian habitat from fire within all 

of the significant botanical areas.

 
2-12 

 

project. The disadvantage of bulldozing is soil 

disturbance and damage to non-target plant species. 

Disk plowing in it various forms can be used for 

removing shallow-rooted herbaceous and woody 

plants. Disk plows should only be used where all of 

the vegetation is intended to be killed. There are 

several different kinds of root plows that are specific 

for certain types of vegetation. In addition to killing 

vegetation, disk plowing is effective in loosening the 

soil surface to prepare it for seeding and to improve 

the rate of water infiltration. The disadvantage of 

disk plowing is that it may be expensive and usually 

kills all species. Also, plowing is usually not 

practicable on steep slopes (greater than a 35% to 

45% slope) or rocky soil. Plant species that sprout 

from roots may survive. 

Chaining and cabling is accomplished by dragging 

heavy anchor chains or steel cables hooked behind to 

tractors in a U-shape, half circle of J-shaped manner. 

Chaining and cabling is affective on rocky soils and 

steep slopes. Chaining and cabling are best used to 

control non-sprouting woody vegetation such as 

small trees and shrubs. However, desirable shrubs 

may be damaged in the process. Herbaceous 

vegetation is normally not injured by this control 

method. This control method is cost effective as 

large areas can be readily treated. The chains or 

cables also scarify the soil surface in anticipation of 

seeding desirable species. The disadvantage is that 

weedy herbaceous vegetation can survive this 

treatment. 

There are various tractor attachments that are used 

for mowing, beating, crushing, chopping, or 

shredding vegetation depending on the nature of the 

plant stand and goals of the project. The advantage 

in using this type of equipment is that selective plants 

may be targeted to achieve specific goals. For 

example, mowing is effective in reducing plant 

height to a desirable condition and it usually does not 

kill vegetation. Mowing is more effective on 

herbaceous than woody vegetation. On the other 

hand, a rolling cutter can kill woody non-sprouting 

vegetation by breaking stems at ground level but 

leave herbaceous vegetation. Mowing, beating, 

crushing, chopping, or shredding usually does not 

disturb soil. Rocky soil and steep slopes may limit 

this use of this equipment. 

Debris management after a mechanical control 

treatment application is critical in fuels reduction 

projects. Vegetation material that is left on-site will 

dry and may become more hazardous than before the 

treatment. Herbaceous material is usually not a 

problem because it will decompose relatively fast 

depending on soil moisture, and ambient humidity 

and temperature. Woody vegetation should be piled 

and burned under acceptable fire management 

practices. 

Biological

Biological methods of vegetation treatment could 

employ grazing by cattle, sheep or goats, but would 

not include the use of invertebrates or 

microorganisms. BLM would only use cattle, sheep 

or goats when grazing would have no effect on listed, 

proposed, or candidate species. The use of grazing as 

a biological control agent will be conducted in 

accordance with BLM procedures in the Use of 

Biological Control Agents of Pests on Public Lands 

(BLM 1990). Grazing by cattle, sheep, or goats 

would be used as biological control methods under 

all alternatives, although at the present these methods 

can control few plant species. 

Gradually, biological methods using cattle, sheep, or 

goats would avoid erosion hazard areas, areas of 

compactable soils, riparian areas susceptible to bank 

damage, and steep erodible slopes. 

Biological control using cattle, sheep or goats would 

be applied to treatment areas for short periods. When 

considering the use of grazing animals as an effective 

biological control measure, several factors will be 

taken into consideration including:

(1) Target plant species present,

(2) Size of the infestation of target plant species, 

(3) Other plant species present,

(4) Stage of growth of both target and other plant 

species

(5) Palatability of all plant species present,

(6) Selectivity of all plant species present by the 

grazing animal species that is being considered 

for use as a biological control agent.

(7) The availability of that grazing animal within 

the treatment site area, and

(8) Type of management program that is logical 

and realistic for the specific treatment site.

These factors will be some of the options taken when 

developing the individual treatment for a specific 

site.

Although discussed as biological agents, cattle, sheep 

and goats are not truly biological agents but are 

domestic animals used to control only the top growth 

of certain noxious weeds. The following are some 

advantages of using domestic animals, mainly sheep 
2-13 

 

or goats, for noxious weed control: (1) they use 

weeds as a food source, (2) following a brief 

adjustment period, they sometimes consume as much 

as 50 percent of their daily diet of this species, (3) 

average daily gains of offspring grazing certain 

weed-infested pastures can sometimes be 

significantly higher than average daily gains of 

offspring grazing grass pastures, and (4) sheep or 

goats can be used in combination with herbicides.

Some of the disadvantages of using domestic animals 

are (1) they also use nontarget plants as food sources, 

(2) the use of domestic animals, like sheep or goats, 

requires a herder or temporary fencing, (3) the 

animals may be killed by predators such as coyotes, 

(4) heavy grazing of some weed species, such as 

leafy spurge, tends to loosen the stool of the grazing 

animals, (5) most weed species are less palatable than 

desirable vegetation and would cause overgrazing, 

(6) they may accelerate movement of nonnative 

plants through seed ingestion and excretion, and (7) 

domestic livestock may transmit parasites and/or 

pathogens to resident native wildlife species.

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning is the planned application of fire 

to wildland fuels in their natural or modified state, 

under specific conditions of fuels, weather, and other 

variables, to allow the fire to remain in a 

predetermined area and to achieve site-specific fire 

and resource management objectives.

Management objectives of prescribed burning include 

the control of certain species; enhancement of 

growth, reproduction, or vigor of certain species, 

management of fuel loads, and maintenance of 

vegetation community types that best meet multipleuse management objectives. Treatments would be 

implemented in accordance with BLM procedures in 

Fire Planning (BLM 1987c), Prescribed Fire 

Management (BLM 1988b), and Fire Training and 

Qualifications (BLM 1987d).

Prior to conducting a prescribed burn, a written plan

must be prepared that takes into consideration 

existing conditions (amount of fuel, fuel moisture, 

temperatures, terrain, weather forecasts, etc.) And 

identifies people responsible for overseeing the fire. 

Natural fire that is allowed to burn also needs to be 

carefully monitored to ensure that it will not threaten 

communities, other values to be protected, and 

ecosystems. This may require special expertise such 

as the fire use management teams that have been 

developed to support the overall fire management 

program. Planning and implementation for a specific 

prescribed fire project entails the following four 

phases: 

• Phase 1: Information/Assessment Phase includes 

identifying the area to be treated, inventory and 

assessment of site specific conditions (live and 

dead vegetation densities, dead down woody 

fuels loadings, soil types, etc.), analysis of 

historic and present fire management, 

identification of resource objectives from Land 

Use Plans and NEPA analysis and compliance. 

• Phase 2; The Prescribed Fire Plan Development 

Phase includes developing the site specific 

prescribed fire plan to BLM Standards, it also 

includes reviews of the plan and obtaining plan 

approval from local BLM field office 

administrators. 

• Phase 3; Implementation includes ignition of the 

fire according to the planís prescribed 

parameters. Implementation includes prescribed 

fire boundary area preparation to ensure the fire 

remains in prescribed boundaries. Site 

preparation may be in the form of fire line 

construction and improving roads, wildlife and 

stock trails by limbing trees and clearing debris. 

• Phase 4; Monitoring and Evaluation includes 

assessment and long term monitoring of the fire 

treatment to ensure the prescribed fire has met 

the objectives of the approved prescribed fire 

plan. BLM fire monitoring policy is described 

in the BLM prescribed Fire Management 

Handbook, October 2003, Chapter 2 and 

Appendix 7. This policy applies to prescribed 

fire and wildland fire use.

Appropriate Management Response

The appropriate management response concept 

represents a range of available management 

responses to wildland fires. Responses range from 

full fire suppression to managing fires for resource 

benefits (fire use). Management responses applied to 

a fire will be identified in the FMPís and will be 

based on objectives derived from the land use 

allocations; relative risk to resources, the public and 

fire fighters; potential complexity; and the ability to 

defend management boundaries. Any wildland fire 

can be aggressively suppressed and any fire that 

occurs in an area designated for fire use can be 

managed for resource benefits if it meets the 

prescribed criteria from an approved fire 

management plan. 
2-14 

 

Chemical

BLM will use EPA-approved herbicides in 

accordance with EPA's Endangered Species Pesticide 

Program covered in the BLMís Vegetation Treatment 

on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States FEIS (May 

1991) and further limited to those approved for use 

by the Arizona Record of Decision (Page 3, ROD, 

July 1991). These herbicides are: Atrazine; 

Bromacil; Bromacil + Diuron; Chlorsulfuron; 

Clopyralid; 2,4-D, Dicamba; Dicamba + 2,4-D; 

Diuron; Glyphosate; Glyphosate + 2,4-D; 

Hexazinone; Imazapyr; Mefluidide; Metsulfuron 

Methyl; Picloram; Picloram + 2,4-D; Simazine; 

Sulfometuron Methyl; Tebuthiuron; and Triclopyr. 

Treatments will follow Standard Operating 

Procedures) on pages 1-19 through 1-32 and project 

design features on pages 1-33 through 1-37 of the 

FEIS. Additionally, project design features, 

including buffer strips described on page 10 of the 

ROD, as follows: Buffer strips would be used 

adjacent to dwellings, domestic water sources, 

agriculture land, streams, lakes, and ponds. A 

minimum buffer strip 100 feet wide will be provided 

for aerial application, 25 feet for vehicle application 

and 10 feet for hand application. Any deviations must 

be in accordance with the label for the herbicide. 

Herbicides will be wiped on individual plants within 

10 feet of water where application is critical. 

Additionally, in order to protect listed, proposed, and 

candidate species, these buffer strips would be used. 

BLM will work closely with the FWS to ensure that 

herbicide applications will not affect listed or 

proposed threatened or endangered species on a 

project-level basis. If adverse effects are anticipated 

during informal consultation, then BLM will formally 

consult on these projects. If FWS develops herbicide 

guidance for particular species that improves 

protection beyond the current BLM design features, 

BLM will consider and incorporate that guidance as 

it consults with the FWS on a project-level basis. 

The chemicals can be applied by many different 

methods, and the selected technique depends on a 

number of variables. Some of these are (1) the 

treatment objective (removal or reduction); (2) the

accessibility, topography, and size of the treatment 

area; (3) the characteristics of the target species and 

the desired vegetation; (4) the location of sensitive 

areas in the immediate vicinity (potential 

environmental impacts); (5) the anticipated costs and 

equipment limitations; and (6) the meteorological and 

vegetative conditions of the treatment area at the time 

of treatment.

Herbicide applications are scheduled and designed to 

minimize potential impacts on non-target plants and 

animals, while remaining consistent with the 

objective of the vegetation treatment program. The 

rates of application depend on the target species, 

presence and condition of non-target vegetation, soil 

type, depth to the water table, presence of other water 

sources, and the requirements of the label.

In many circumstances the herbicide chosen, time of 

treatment, and rate of application of the herbicide is 

different than the most ideal herbicide application for 

maximum control of the target plant species in order 

to minimize damage to the non-target plant species, 

and to ensure minimum risk to human health and 

safety.

The chemicals would be applied aerially with 

helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft or on the ground 

using vehicles or manual application devices. 

Helicopters are most expensive to use than fixedwing aircraft, but they are more maneuverable and 

effective in areas with irregular terrain and in treating 

specific target vegetation in areas with many 

vegetation types. Manual applications are used only 

for treating small areas or those inaccessible by 

vehicle.

The typical and maximum application rates of each 

chemical would vary, depending on the program area 

being treated.

Fire Suppression Actions

The following constraints to fire suppression actions 

are common to all alternatives:

• Suppression tactics will be utilized that limit 

damage or disturbance to the habitat and 

landscape. No heavy equipment will be used 

(such as dozers) unless approved the Field Office 

Manager.

• Use of fire retardants or chemicals adjacent to 

waterways will be accomplished in accordance 

to the ìEnvironmental Guidelines For Delivery 

of Retardant or Foam Near Waterways 

(Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation 

Operations pages 8-13)

• All known cultural resources will be protected 

from disturbance. 

• In Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, 

and areas being managed for wilderness 

characteristics according to LUPs, when 

suppression actions are required, minimum 

impact suppression tactics (Interagency 

Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations, 

2003) would be utilized and coordinated with 

Wilderness Area management objectives and 

guidelines. 
2-15 

 

• The general and species-specific Conservation 

Measures listed in Appendix D will be 

implemented to the extent possible to minimize 

adverse effects to Federally listed, proposed, or 

candidate species occurring within the action 

area.

• For fire suppression activities, a protocol for 

consultation has been developed as a part of the 

Biological Opinion. This programmatic 

consultation contains conservation measures and 

prescriptions for use in fire suppression 

activities. Emergency consultation should only 

be needed in the future if suppression actions fall 

outside of these prescriptions/measures. The BO 

will outline coordination needs for emergency 

response actions that may affect a 

listed/proposed species and/or critical habitat. 

The following protocol will apply:

o BLM will contact the appropriate 

USFWS biologist as soon as 

practical once a wildfire starts and 

a determination is made that a

Federally protected species and/or 

its habitat could be affected by the 

fire and/or fire suppression 

activities. USFWS will work with 

BLM during the emergency 

response to apply the appropriate 

Conservation Measures. If 

Conservation Measures cannot be 

applied during the suppression 

activities, BLM will need to consult 

after the fact on any suppression 

actions that may have affected the 

Federally protected species or its 

habitat. If Conservation Measures 

are adhered to, then BLM will 

report on the actions taken and 

effects to the species and its habitat 

following the fire, but no further 

consultation on that incident will be 

required.

2.5 Implementation and 

Monitoring 

2.5.1 Implementation

LUP decisions generally are implemented or become 

effective upon approval of the plan or amendment. 

These include the effective date of land health 

standards and desired future condition decisions, land 

use allocation decisions, and all special designations 

such as an ACEC. Management actions that require 

additional site-specific project planning as funding 

becomes available will require further environmental 

analysis. Decisions to implement site-specific 

projects are subject to administrative review at the 

time such decisions are made. BLM will continue to 

involve and collaborate with the public during 

implementation of the LUP amendment. 

2.5.2 Adaptive Management 

Adaptive management is a formal, systematic, and 

rigorous approach to learning from the outcomes of 

management actions, accommodating change and 

improving management. It involves synthesizing 

existing knowledge, exploring alternative actions and 

making explicit forecasts about their outcomes. 

Management actions and monitoring programs are 

carefully designed to generate reliable feedback and 

clarify the reasons underlying outcomes. Actions and 

objectives are then adjusted based on this feedback 

and improved understanding. In addition, decisions, 

actions and outcomes are carefully documented and 

communicated to others, so that knowledge gained 

through experience is passed on, rather than being 

lost when individuals move or leave the organization.

This LUP amendment implements an adaptive 

management strategy. This adaptive management 

process is a flexible process that generally involves 

four phases: planning, implementation, monitoring, 

and evaluation. As BLM obtains new information, it 

would evaluate monitoring data and other resource 

information to periodically refine and update desired 

conditions and management strategies. This allows 

for the continual refinement and improvement of 

management prescriptions and practices.

2.5.3 Administrative Actions

Although BLMís intent and commitment to 

accomplish administrative actions is generally 

addressed in RMP/EIS or LUP amendment/EA level 

documents, such activities are neither land use plan 

level decisions nor implementation level management 

actions decisions. Administrative actions are day-today activities conducted by BLM, often required by 

FLPMA but do not require a NEPA analysis or 

decision by a responsible official to be accomplished. 

Examples of administrative actions include: mapping, 

surveying, inventorying, monitoring, collecting 

information needed such as research and studies, and 

completing project specific or implementation level 

plans. Administrative actions are denoted throughout 

the decision document with a number beginning with 

an ìAA.î
2-16 

 

2.5.4 Requirements for Further 

Environmental Analysis

The LUP amendment/EA is a programmatic 

environmental document describing the impacts of 

implementing the LUP decision and associated 

management actions described in the planning areas 

on a statewide basis. LUP decisions that are 

implemented upon approval of the amendment do not 

require any further environmental analysis or 

documentation. 

Fire Management Plans (FMPs) are strategic 

documents that compile LUP decisions related to fire 

management. They describe the entire fire 

management program for a fire planning area (FPA). 

Fire Management Plans must provide for firefighter 

and public safety; include fire management strategies, 

tactics, and alternatives (appropriate management 

response to wildfire and identifying areas for fire 

use), address values to be protected and public health 

issues; and be consistent with resource management 

objectives, activities of the area, and environmental 

laws and regulations. FMPs incorporate mitigation, 

wildfire burn area rehabilitation, and fuels reduction 

and restoration activities that contribute to ecosystem 

sustainability identifying in general areas, sizes and 

describing in general terms the fuels management 

treatments that may be implemented to meet LUP 

resource management objectives and constraints. 

FMPs describe fire management forces, equipment, 

and support and administrative personnel and 

associated budgets needed to manage the fire 

program. FMPs do not make new decisions or Land 

Use Allocations and do not qualify as documents 

constituting discretionary Federal actions. Whenever 

implementation level plans (Fuels Management 

Plans, Fire Use Plans, etc.) are prepared additional 

environmental analysis and documentation would be 

required. Environmental analysis of site-specific 

projects at the watershed or FPA wide programmatic 

level may analyze multiple fire management projects. 

Section 7 consultation for multiple projects planned 

over a three to five year period would be batched 

together or done on a case by case basis.

Site-specific environmental analyses and 

documentation (including the use of categorical 

exclusions and determinations of NEPA adequacy 

where appropriate) may be prepared for one or more 

individual projects, in accordance with management 

objectives and decisions established in the approved 

land use plan. In addition, BLM will ensure that the 

environmental review process includes evaluation of 

all critical elements. Cultural resources and 

threatened and endangered species will be identified 

and considered in accordance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act and Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act, respectively.

Interdisciplinary impact analysis will be based on this 

and other applicable environmental documents. If 

the analysis prepared for site-specific projects finds 

potential for significant impacts not already described 

in an existing EA or EIS, another EA, EIS, or a 

supplement to an existing EIS may be warranted.

Upon providing public notice of a decision, 

supporting environmental documentation will be sent 

to all affected interests and made available to other 

publics on request. Decisions to implement sitespecific projects are subject to administrative review 

at the time such decisions are made.

2.6 Interrelationships 

The BLM coordinates its fire management activities 

with the actions of related Federal and State agencies 

responsible for fire management. The Federal 

Wildland Fire Policy is a collaborative effort that 

includes the BLM, U.S. Forest Service, National Park 

Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National 

Biological Service, and State wildfire management 

organizations. The collaborative effort has 

formulated and standardized the guiding principals 

and priorities of wildland fire management. 

Collaboration of the Federal Wildland Fire Policy on 

a nation wide scale has provided common priorities 

and objective for Federal land management agencies 

including protection of human life, property, and 

natural/cultural resources as secondary priorities. 

This policy also provides recognition of wildland fire 

as a critical natural process that should be safely 

reintroduced into ecosystems that are wildfire 

dependent across agency boundaries. The National 

Fire Plan is a collaborative interagency effort to 

apply the Federal Wildland Policy to all Federal Land 

Management Agencies and partners in State forestry 

or lands departments. Operational collaboration 

between the BLM, U.S. Forest Service, NPS, and 

USFWS is included in the Interagency Standards for 

Fire and Fire Aviation Operations 2003. This 

Federally approved document addresses fire 

management, wildfire suppression, fuels management 

and prescribed fire safety, interagency coordination 

and cooperation, qualifications and training, 

objectives, performance standards, and fire 

management program administration. 

As part of the LUP amendment process, BLM 

conducted Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 

informal and formal consultation with the U.S. Fish 
2-17 

 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on potential impacts 

to federally listed, proposed, and candidate species, 

and designated or proposed critical habitat. In April 

2003, BLM and USFWS finalized a Consultation 

Agreement to establish an effective and cooperative 

ESA Section 7 consultation process. The Agreement 

defines the process, products, actions, schedule, and 

expectations of the BLM and USFWS regarding 

project consultation. The Agreement also considers 

effects to, and management for, candidate species. 

One Biological Evaluation (BE) was prepared to 

determine the effect of the preferred alternative on all 

relevant listed, proposed, and candidate species, and 

associated critical habitat. All anticipated 

environmental effects, conservation actions, 

mitigation, and monitoring were disclosed in the BE, 

including analysis of all direct and indirect effects of 

the LUP amendment and any interrelated and 

interdependent actions. The BE was submitted to the 

USFWS on December 4, 2003 and a BO is expected 

from the USFWS in about May 2004. 

This EA also included consultation with the Arizona 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on 

compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA). BLM actions will also 

comply with other Federal environmental legislation, 

existing programmatic fire management, land use 

plans, and vegetation treatment documents, such as 

the Clear Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, and with applicable State and 

local government regulations, such as the Sikes Act 

(16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.), as amended (see Section 1.4

and Appendix B, ìApplicable Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Planning Criteriaî). 

The Sikes Act authorizes DOI, in cooperation with 

the State agencies responsible for the administration 

of fish and game laws, to plan, develop, maintain, 

and coordinate programs for the conservation and 

rehabilitation of wildlife, fish and game on public 

lands within its jurisdiction. The plans must be 

consistent with any overall land-use and management 

plans for the lands involved and could include 

specific habitat improvement projects and related 

activities and adequate protection for species of fish, 

wildlife, and plants considered endangered or 

threatened. BLM must also coordinate with 

appropriate State agencies in management of Statelisted plant and animal species when a State has 

formally made such designations. 
3-1 

Section 3.0 Affected Environment

The CEQís regulations implementing NEPA direct 

agencies to reduce excessive paperwork by 

incorporating by reference (40 CFR 1500.4(j)). As 

such, the LUPs to be amended, along with 

supplements or documents tiered to those original 

LUPs, frequently present more detailed information 

on the affected environment of the BLMadministered public lands that the plans represent. In 

an effort to reduce excessive or unnecessary 

paperwork, the affected environment sections of 

those LUPs are incorporated by reference into this 

document. Those LUPs, supplemental or tiered 

documents are: 

Bureau of Land Management. 1982. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Grazing 

Management Program for the Lower Gila North EIS 

Area. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management Yuma, Mohave, Yavapai, and Maricopa 

Counties, Phoenix District, Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1983. Lower Gila 

North Management Framework Plan. U.S. Dept. of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lower 

Gila North Resource Area, Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Lower Gila 

South Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix 

District, Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Final Yuma 

District Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma 

District, Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1988. Proposed 

Phoenix Resource Management Plan, Draft and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix 

District, Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1989. Final Lower 

Gila South Resource Management Plan (Goldwater 

Amendment). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Lower Gila South Resource 

Area, Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1990. Proposed 

Arizona Strip District Resource Management Plan 

and Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Arizona Strip District, Arizona (as amended, 1998). 

Bureau of Land Management. 1991. Safford District 

Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Safford District Office, 

Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Kingman 

Resource Area Proposed Resource Management Plan 

and Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. 

Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Kingman Resource Area, Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Planning 

Update, Amendment and Environmental Assessment 

to the Lower Gila North and South Management 

Plans. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Lower Gila Resource Area, Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Rangeland 

Reform '94, Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service.

Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Resource 

Management Plan Amendment, Desert Tortoises and 

Virgin River Fishes. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management.

3.1 Physical Environment

3.1.1 Air Resources

The Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1970 

(amended in 1990) to limit the emission of pollutants 

into the atmosphere to protect human health and the 

environment from the effect of airborne pollution. 

The CAA authorized the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to achieve this objective by 

setting air quality standards and regulate emissions of 

pollutants into the air. EPA has established emission 

standards for mobile (e.g., automobile) and stationary 

(e.g., factories) sources for pollutant emissions. 

These controls are implemented in Arizona through 

EPA and the Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ).

EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) for six pollutants: particulate 

matter with diameter of ten microns or less (PM10), 

carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) Ozone (O3), and volatile organic 
3-2 

compounds (VOC). The State of Arizona has adopted 

the EPA standards for the six pollutants. Regulation 

has afforded the public some protection from toxic 

levels of these air pollutants. The primary 

responsibility rests with ADEQ, which must submit a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) to achieve and 

maintain the NAAQS. Pursuant to the SIP, new or 

modified air emission sources must undergo preconstruction review to determine whether the source 

will interfere with attainment or maintenance of 

NAAQS. In addition, some areas that do not attain 

NAAQS must have a SIP that includes regulatory 

strategies to control emissions from existing sources.

As Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1 illustrate, Arizona 

currently has ten PM10, six SO2, two CO, and one O3

nonattainment areas. The BLM planning areas of the

Arizona Strip RMP, the northern region of the 

Phoenix RMP, the Kingman RMP, Lover Gila South 

RMP, and the Lower Gila North MFP meet (inattainment) the NAAQS. The BLM planning areas 

that do not meet the air quality standards include the 

Yuma RMP, Safford RMP, and the southern region 

of the Phoenix RMP. These nonattainment planning 

areas are described below and presented in Table 3.2. 

• Land managed by the Yuma Field Office is 

nonattainment for PM10 in the City of Yuma in 

Yuma County. 

• Land managed by the Havasu Field Office is 

nonattainment for PM10 in the Bullhead City area 

in Mohave County. 

• Land managed by the Safford Field Office is 

nonattainment for PM10 and SO2 in the Douglas 

area in Cochise County and SO2 in the Morenci 

area in Greenlee County. 

• Land managed by the Phoenix Field Office is 

nonattainment for PM10 in the Hayden area in 

Pinal and Gila Counties, the Phoenix area in 

Maricopa County, the Nogales area in Santa 

Cruz County, and the Rillito area in Pima 

County. Nonattainment for SO2 occurs in the 

Hayden area in Pinal and Gila Counties, the 

Miami area in Gila County, and the San Manuel 

area in Pinal County. CO nonattainments in the 

region occur at the Phoenix area in Maricopa 

County and the Tucson area in Pima County. 

The Phoenix area in Maricopa County is also 

nonattainment for ozone.

Additional information on air resources in each BLM 

Field Office is provided in BLMís existing LUPs, 

referenced at the beginning of Section 3.0, and 

incorporated here by reference.

3.1.2 Soil Resources

The soils on BLM-administered land in Arizona are 

diverse and associated with a variety of climates, 

vegetative cover, topography, and geology. Firerelated impacts on soils are largely dependent on the 

duration and intensity of the fire and its effects on the 

vegetative cover, the properties of the soils, and the 

climate and topography (Clark, 2001). The impacts 

of wild or prescribed fire on soils may be minimal, or 

may accelerate improvement or degradation of the 

soil resources beyond what may have occurred 

without intervention, such as extinguishing a wildfire 

or conducting a prescribed burn. 

There are 11 soil suborders found on BLMadministered land in Arizona (Figure 3.2), however 

approximately 83% of these soils are associated with 

only 3 suborders: Orthids, Argids and Orthents 

(Table 3.3). These soils developed primarily under 

hot, dry conditions and are characterized as having 

thermic or hyperthermic temperature regimes, and 

aridic or semi-aridic moisture regimes. Orthids and 

Argids are light-colored soils containing little organic 

matter and having at least one diagnostic subhorizon. 

Orthids can be calcerous throughout, but can also 

have accumulations of carbonates (calcic horizon), 

cemented carbonates (petrocalcic horizon) or

cemented silica (duripan), with limited areas having 

accumulations of gypsum (gypsic horizon). Argids 

can have clay (argillic horizon) or sodium (natric 

horizon) accumulations in the subsurface. On BLMadministered lands, Sonoran and Mohave Desert 

Scrub in western and southern Arizona are the 

primary vegetation communities associated with 

Orthids and Argids soils (71.5% and 63.5%, 

respectively). Plains and Great Basin Grassland, 

Great Basin Desert Scrub and Great Basin PinyonJuniper Woodland compose most of the remaining 

vegetative cover for Orthids and Argids soils (26.5% 

and 15.4%, respectively), with additional areas of 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub, Semidesert Grassland, and 

Interior Chaparral associated with the Argids soils 

(19.2%). Approximately 1% of the Orthids and 

Argids soils are in Riparian areas. 

Orthents soils are characterized by a lack of horizon 

development due to a dry climate, and parent 

materials that are resistant to weathering. Orthents 

are commonly shallow soils over rock and found on 

steep slopes or very dry environments. Sonoran and 

Mohave Desert Scrub are the primary vegetation 

3-4 

Table 3.1 ñ Arizona NAAQS Nonattainment Areas

Nonattainment 

Pollutant Affected Areas and Counties Sources of PollutantEmissions in Areas Status

Ajo Area of Pima County Dry, unstable conditions of the trailing 

piles northeast of Ajo, paved and unpaved 

roads, and cleared areas. 

ADEQ had developed a maintenance plan 

and submitted to EPA requesting 

redesignation to attainment

Bullhead City Area of Mohave County Cleared construction areas, unpaved roads, 

and parking lots.

EPA designated Bullhead City Area a 

moderate PM10 nonattainment in 1993. In 

2002 EPA determined that the Bullhead 

City PM10 nonattainment did attain the 24-

hour and annual PM10 NAAQS. ADEQ had 

submitted a request for redesignation to 

attainment.

Douglas Area of Cochise County Unpaved roads, parking lots, off road 

vehicles, and agricultural activities (most 

of the agricultural activities and associated 

emissions occur on the Mexico side of the 

international border.

Hayden Area of Gila and Pinal Counties Crushing and conveying activities at the 

Ray Unit crushing plant and road dust. 

Nogales Area of Santa Cruz County Paved and unpaved road. It was estimated 

that 94 percent of the PM10 emissions in 

the international regions were generated in 

Nogales, Mexico.

Paul Spur Area of Cochise County Emissions from lime plant, unpaved roads, 

and border dragging operations.

ADEQ had developed a maintenance plan 

and submitted to EPA requesting 

redesignation to attainment

Payson Area of Gila County Rock crushers, concrete batch plants, 

sawmill, wood smoke, and paved/unpaved 

roads.

ADEQ had developed a maintenance plan 

and submitted to EPA requesting 

redesignation to attainment

Phoenix Area of Maricopa County A Paved/unpaved road, construction sites 

disturbed areas on vacant lots, and 

windblown dusts from agricultural fields.

ADEQ had submitted to EPA a SIP revision 

of Agricultural PM10 General Permit. 

Rillito Area of Pima County Unstabilized river banks and road 

shoulders unpaved local roads, and the 

Arizona Portland Cement Company.

PM10

Yuma Area of Yuma County Paved/unpaved roads, agricultural tilling 

and burning, and disturbed areas. 

ADEQ anticipates submitting to EPA the 

Yuma Moderate Area PM10 Maintenance 

Plan and request redesignation to attainment 

by late 2003

Ajo Area of Pima County The Ajo copper smelter operation. The 

operation was dismantled in 1995 (Phelps 

Dodge Ajo, Inc.)

ADEQ had developed a maintenance plan 

and submitted to EPA requesting 

redesignation to attainment

Douglas Area of Cochise County Douglas copper smelter operation. The 

operation was dismantled in 1987.

ADEQ had developed a maintenance plan 

and submitted to EPA requesting 

redesignation to attainment

Hayden Area of Gila and Pinal Counties Hayden and Ray copper smelter 

operations. Ray operation was closed in 

1987.

ADEQ developed the Hayden Moderate 

Area SO2 Maintenance Plan and submitted 

to EPA and requested redesignation to 

attainment.

Miami Area of Gila County Copper smelter operations. ADEQ developed the Miami Moderate 

Area SO2 Maintenance Plan and submitted 

to EPA and requested redesignation to 

attainment.

Morenci Area of Greenlee County Morenci copper smelter operations ADEQ developed a Maintenance Plan and 

submitted to EPA and requested 

redesignation to attainment.

SO2

San Manuel Area of Pinal County Copper smelter operations. ADEQ developed a Maintenance Plan and 

submitted to EPA and requested 

redesignation to attainment.

Phoenix Area of Maricopa County On-road and non-road mobile and area 

sources (fuel combustion, incineration, 

etc.)

Area is designated as serious CO 

CO nonattainment.

Tuscan Area of Pima County Vehicular emissions. 

Ozone* Phoenix Area of Maricopa County VOC and NOx emissions from point, non 

road, area, stationary, motor vehicles, and 

biogenic sources

Area is designated as serious ozone 

nonattainment.

* VOC and NOx are ozone precursors. 
3-5 

Table 3.2 ñ NAAQS Nonattainment Areas Within The Affected Environment

Nonattainment Air Pollutants And Areas Affected

Planning Areas

PM10 SO2 CO Ozone

Bullhead City Area

(Mohave County)

- - -

Yuma Area

(Yuma County)

- - -

Yuma RMP

Ajo Area

(Pima County)

Ajo Area

(Pima County)

 

Douglas Area

(Cochise County)

Douglas Area

(Cochise County)

Safford RMP - -

- Morenci Area

(Greenlee County)

- -

Hayden Area

(Pinal and Gila Counties)

Hayden Area

(Pinal and Gila Counties)

Phoenix Area

(Maricopa County)

Phoenix Area 

(Maricopa County)

Phoenix Area

(Maricopa County)

Miami Area

(Gila County)

Tucson Area

(Pima County)

-

Nogales Area

(Santa Cruz County)

San Manuel Area

(Pinal County)

- -

Phoenix RMP

(Southern Region)

Rillito Area

(Pima County)

- - -

Table 3.3 ñ Distribution of Soil Suborders on BLM-Administered Land in Arizona

Soil Type Area of BLM land Area of BLM land

Order Suborder (Acres) (%)

Boralfs 950 0.01 Alfisols Ustalfs 314,223 2.55

Argids 3,758,250 30.49 Aridisols Orthids 4,437,152 36.00

Fluvents 462,103 3.75

Entisols Orthents 2,049,837 16.63

Psamments 44,632 0.36

Inceptisols Ochrepts 46,415 0.38

Mollisols Ustolls 790,448 6.41

Torrents 3,036 0.02 Vertisols Usterts 50,108 0.41

Rock 369,551 3.00

TOTAL 12,326,704 100.00

3-7 

communities associated with Orthents (67.1%), and 

are scattered throughout western, southern and south 

central Arizona. Semidesert Grassland, Plains and 

Great Basin Grassland, Great Basin Desert Scrub, 

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland and Interior 

Chaparral compose most of the remaining vegetative 

cover (29.7%), primarily in northeastern Arizona. 

Approximately 2% of the Orthents soils are in 

Riparian areas. Approximately 13% of the remaining 

soils on BLM-administered lands are in the suborders 

Fluvents, Ustolls and Ustalfs. Fluvents formed in 

recent loamy or clayey alluvial deposits near stream 

channels or on piedmont slopes and are associated 

with Chihuahuan Desert Scrub, Plains and Great 

Basin Grassland, Great Basin Desert Scrub, and 

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (68.6%) 

found mainly in northwestern Arizona and in narrow 

bands along the river valleys. Over 7% of the 

Fluvents soils are in riparian areas and approximately 

2% are agricultural lands. Ustolls are thick, darkcolored soils that occur at higher elevations in 

semiarid and subhumid climates with an ustic soil 

moisture regime and a mesic soil temperature regime. 

Ustolls can have clay, carbonate or cemented 

carbonate horizons, and are associated with 

Semidesert Grassland, Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland and Interior Chaparral (87.3%) found 

scattered throughout Arizona. Ustalfs are reddishcolored soils that usually have some accumulations of 

carbonates in or below the subsoil and can have a 

high sodium content. Ustalfs are associated almost 

entirely with Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 

(70.6%), with some Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub, 

Plains and Great Basin Grassland and Great Basin 

Desert Scrub (22.7%) found scattered throughout 

Arizona. Riparian areas are not generally associated 

with Ustolls or Ustalfs soils. 

3.1.3 Water Resources

3.1.3.1 Surface Waters

There is a diversity of surface water types in Arizona, 

reflecting the varied topography, climate, and human 

modification of the landscapes in the state. Surface 

waters occurring within BLM districts of the state 

have been described in existing planning documents 

cited in Section 3.1.1; readers are referred to those 

documents for detailed information about the 

occurrence and nature of surface water resources in 

individual districts. Figure 3.3 shows the locations of 

major rivers in the state, and also shows occurrence 

of lakes (including impoundments) and other streams. 

Figure 3.3 also notes the occurrence of significant 

riparian areas in the state. The largest contiguous 

riparian areas occur in the Little Colorado River 

basin near Holbrook. Extensive riparian areas also 

exist along the Virgin River, Paria River, and Kanab 

Creek and the Gila River; extensive areas are also 

present in the Kingman district. Many of the latter 

appear on the map as linear features, reflecting their 

association with intermittent streams. The 

occurrence and condition of riparian areas and 

wetlands on BLM lands (including some lands 

proposed for acquisition), and management of those 

lands, has been described in existing management 

plans. In some plans, riparian areas have been 

discussed in the context of stream and water 

resources, in other reports focus on the habitat values 

of riparian areas and describe management activities 

to protect and improve the quality of riparian and 

wetland systems. 

3.1.3.2 Groundwater 

The occurrence and characteristics of groundwater 

resources have been described in varying levels of 

detail in the LUP documents cited at the beginning of 

Section 3, and incorporated here by reference. There 

have likely not been significant changes in the 

occurrence, availability, or chemistry of groundwater 

from conditions described in those documents. 

Moreover, potential changes in fire prevention and 

fire suppression activities on BLM lands in the state 

are not likely to result in material changes to 

groundwater resources.

3.1.3.3 Water Quality

A 1988 report by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ, 1988), cited in the 

RMP for the Arizona Strip District (1990) indicated 

that fewer than 10% of waters in the state met 

standards for beneficial uses, due mostly to impacts 

from non-point sources, and further indicated that the 

most significant non-point sources included grazing, 

hydrologic/habitat modification, recreation, and 

resource extraction. More recent ADEQ data (Marsh, 

2002) indicate significantly better water quality in the 

state; the stateís 2002 water quality assessment found 

that only 14% of streams and 15 % of the area of 

lakes included in their analysis were classified as 

ìimpairedî or ìnot attainingî water quality standards. 

Thirty six percent of streams and 62% of lakes, 

however, were classified as having insufficient data 

to assess compliance. These water bodies with 

insufficient data have been placed on a planning list 

until they can be further evaluated. 

To protect outstanding state water resources, the 

State of Arizona has established a program of 

ìUnique Waters.î These surface waters are 

identified as having ìexceptional recreational or 
3-8 

ecological significance,î or have been identified as 

being ìessential to the maintenance and propagation 

of a threatened or endangered species,î or as 

providing critical habitat for a threatened or 

endangered species (Marsh, 2002). Water quality 

protections for Unique Waters are more stringent 

than for other surface waters, and include antidegradation procedures that prohibit new or 

expanded discharge of pollutants to these waters. 

The restrictions include discharges associated with 

land use activities such as mining, grazing, and 

agriculture. As of 2002, the state had identified 20 

Unique Waters. 

3.2 Biological Environment

3.2.1 Vegetation Resources

BLM-administered lands in Arizona support 12 main 

biotic communities (after Brown, 1994): Chihuahuan 

Desert Scrub, Mohave Desert Scrub, Great Basin 

Desert Scrub, Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub, Upper 

Sonoran Desert Scrub, Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland, Madrean Evergreen Woodland, Plains 

and Great Basin Grassland, Semidesert Grassland, 

Montane Conifer Forest, Riparian, and Interior 

Chaparral (see Figure 3.4 and Table 3.4; Brown 

1982a). These 12 vegetation communities give rise to 

diversity in plant and wildlife species. The nature of 

plant communities is often clearly demarcated by 

climatic, geological, elevation and aspect gradients 

which in turn influences soil type and soil water 

holding capacity. At the lower elevations, Arizona is 

the confluence of the four major North American 

Deserts: Sonoran Desert, Mojave Desert, Chihuahuan 

Desert, and Great Basin Desert. These deserts 

support a mixture of different vegetation 

communities because of variances in annual 

precipitation and temperature patterns. As elevation 

increases, woodland, chaparral, montane conifer 

forest, subalpine conifer forest, and alpine tundra, 

respectively, become foremost. The vegetation 

communities at mid-level and high elevation are 

influenced by Great Basin Conifer and California 

Evergreen Woodlands, and Sierra and Rocky 

Mountain Conifer Forests, respectively. The 

vegetation communities in each BLM Field Office 

are described by ecological site1

 in the approved 

LUPs referenced at the beginning of Section 3.0. 

Each vegetation community is more fully described 

by Brown (1982a) and summarized in Appendix C.

 

1 An ecological site is a kind of land defined by physical 

characteristics such as soil that differs from other kinds of 

lands in its ability to produce a distinctive mix of 

vegetation and in its response to management (Pellant et al. 

2000).

Each vegetation community varies in annual 

precipitation and temperature regimes, elevation, and 

historic fire regimes (Swetnam and Baisan 1996, 

Paysen et al. 2000). Wildfire in some of these 

vegetation communities was a normal occurrence 

with short return intervals that helped to define 

species composition, structure, and productivity 

(Brown 2000, Paysen et al. 2000). As such, many 

plants that make up these communities are adapted to 

withstand wildfire through a variety of anatomical or 

physiological mechanisms. Examples of fireñ

adapted vegetation communities are Interior 

Chaparral and Montane Forest. On the other hand, 

some vegetation communities, wildfire may not be 

part of their normal ecology and many of the plant 

species are not fire adapted (Roger and Stelle 1980). 

Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub and Mohave Desert 

Scrub are examples of vegetation communities with 

long fire return intervals. Fire in these communities 

would probably be detrimental because plant 

succession would require decades to hundreds of 

years for the vegetation recover and some species 

may never recuperate.

3.2.2 Fire Ecology 

Prior to European settlement, fire was a common and 

widespread influence on many landscapes in the 

Southwest (Paysen et al. 2000). Many of these fires 

were caused naturally from lightening but some were 

also started purposefully by Native Americans for a 

variety of reasons (Swetnam and Baisan 1996, Brown 

2000). The historic fire regime of Arizona lands 

varied in frequency and severity depending on many 

factors such as vegetation type, climate, and 

topography (Figure 3.5). Wildfire in the different 

vegetation communities found on BLM land was a 

normal occurrence and helped define their species 

composition, structure and standing biomass (Brown 

2000). As such, many plants were adapted to 

withstand wildfire through a variety of anatomical or 

physiological mechanisms and persisted with 

frequent fire. Examples of fire-adapted vegetation 

communities with frequent fire return intervals are 

Interior Chaparral, Plains and Great Basin Grassland, 

and Montane Conifer Forest. However, for other 

vegetation communities, wildfire was not a normal 

part of their ecology because the return frequencies 

were hundreds of years (Rogers and Steele 1980, 

McAuliffe 1995). In these communities, the distance 

between shrubs is too great for fire to carry unless 

annual plant growth in the inter-shrub spaces is 

sufficient to carry fire. Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub 

and Mohave Desert Scrub are examples of plant 

communities with long fire return intervals.


3-11 

Table 3.4 ñ 

General Characteristics of the Various Vegetation Communities on BLM-Administered Land Throughout Arizona (after Brown 1982)

Vegetation Community BLM Land

(%)

Plant Growth 

Form Dominant Species Elevation(Feet) Climate Precipitation

(inches)

Lower Sonoran Desert 

Scrub

21.8 Shrubñ

microphyllous

Creosotebush (Larrea tridentata), Whitebursage (Ambrosia 

dumosa), Ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), Brittlebrush 

(Encelia farinose), Fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), 

Palo verde (Parkinsonia florida), Saguaro (Carnegiea 

gigantean), Mesquite (Prosopis velutina), Ironwood (Olneya 

tesota), Catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), Smoketree, Big 

galleta grass (Pleuraphis rigida) 

< 3,445 Subtropical 2ñ9 

Upper Sonoran Desert 

Scrub

26.2 Shrubñ

microphyllous

Blue palo verde (Parkinsonia florida), Foothill palo verde 

(Parkinsonia sp.), Ironwood (Olneya tesota), Creosotebush 

(Larrea tridentata), White bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), 

Limber bush (Jatropha dioica), Ocotillo (Fouquieria 

splendens), Johoba (Simmondsia chinensis), Buckhorn cholla 

(Opuntia acanthocarpa), Klein cholla (Opuntia kleiniae), 

Chain fruit cholla (Opuntia fulgida), Devilís club cholla 

(Opuntia kunzei), Fish-hook pincushion (Mammillaria 

thornberi), Thornber pincushion (mammillaria viridiflora), 

Fishñhook barrel cactus (Mammillaria diocia), Compass 

cactus (Ferocactus acanthodes), Saguaro (Carnegiea 

gigantean)

984ñ3,280 Subtropical 12ñ16

Great Basin PinyonJuniper Woodland12.2 Treeñconifer Rocky Mountain juniper, (Juniperus scopulorm) Great Basin 

juniper (Juniperus occidentalis), Rocky Mountain pinyon 

pine (Pinus edulis), Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), 

Snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), Rabbitbrush (Ericameria 

spp.), Winterfat (Ceratoides lanata), Blackbrush (Isomeris 

arborea), Cliffrose (Purshia mexicana), Apache plume 

(Fallugia paradoxa), Blue gramma (Bouteloua gracilis), 

Galleta grass (Hilaria jamesii), Indian rice grass (Oryzopsis 

hymenoidesi), Western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), 

several Muhleys (Muhlenbergia sp.) and Dropseeds 

(Sporobolus sp.).

6,560ñ9,840 ColdTemperate

10ñ22

Mohave Desert Scrub 9.3 Shrubñ

microphyllous

Creosotebush (Larrea tridentata), Joshua tree (Yucca 

brevifolia), All-scale atriplex (Atriplex polycarpa), 

Brittlebush (Encelia farinose), Desert holly (Atriplex 

hymenelytra), White burrobrush (Hymenolea salsola), 

Shadscale (Aptriplex confertifolia), Blackbrush (Isomeris 

arborea), Engleman hedgehog (Echinocereus engelmannii), 

Silver cholla (Opuntia echinocarpa), Mojave pricklypear 

(Opuntia phaeacantha), Beavertail cactus (Opuntia 

basilaris), Many-headed barrel cactus (Echinocactus 

polycephalus), numerous ephemeral forbs

980ñ4,000 WarmTemperate

2ñ8
3-12 

Vegetation Community BLM Land

(%)

Plant Growth 

Form Dominant Species Elevation(Feet) Climate Precipitation

(inches)

Great Basin Desert Scrub 8.5 Shrub Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), Black sagebrush 

(Artemisia nova), Bigelow sagebrush (Artemisia bigelovii), 

Shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), Fourwing saltbush 

(Atriplex canescens), Rabbitbrush (Ericameria spp.), 

Winterfate (Ceratoides lanata), Hopsage (Grayia spinosa), 

Horsebrush (Tetradymia sp.), Blackbrush (Isomeris arborea), 

Greasewood (Sacrobatus vermiculatus), Blue gramma 

(Bouteloua gracilis), Galleta grass (Hilaria jamesii), Indian 

rice grass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), Western wheatgrass 

(Agropyron smithii), Junegrass (Ikoeleria macrantha), several 

Muhleys (Muhlenbergia sp.) and Dropseeds (Sporobolus sp.) 

3930ñ7220 ColdTemperate

< 10

Plains and Great Basin 

Grassland

6.0 Grass Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Little bluestem 

(Schizachyrium scoparium), Indian grass (Sorghastrum 

nutans), Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), Western 

wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), Needle and thread grass 

(Stipa comatai), Galleta (Hilaria sp.), Sand dropseed 

(Sporobolus crytandrus), Blue gramma (Bouteloua gracilis), 

Buffalo-grass (Buchloe dactyloides), Indian rice grass 

(Oryzopsis hymenoides), Prairie grass (Bromus wildenowii), 

Junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), Plains lovegrass (Eragrostis 

intermedia), Alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), Fourwing 

saltbush (Atriplex canescens), Big sagebrush (Artemisia 

tridentata), winterfat (Ceratoides lanata), Soapweed, 

Rabbitbrush (Ericameria spp.)

4,920ñ7,545 ColdTemperate

12ñ18

Semidesert Grassland 6.0 Grass Tobosa (Pleuraphis mutica), Black gramma (Bouteloua 

hirsute), Side-oats gramma (Bouteloua curtipendula), 

Slender gramma (Bouteloua repens), Bush muhly 

(Muhlenbergia porteri), Three awn (Aristida purpurea), 

Arizona cottontop (Digitaria californica), Vine mesquite 

(Prosopis sp.), Buffalo-grass (Buchloe dactyloides), Plains 

lovegrass (Eragrostis intermedia), Wolftail (Lycurus 

setosus), Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), 

Mesquite (Prosopis sp.), Lotebush (Ziziphus obtusifolia), 

Allthorn (Koeberlinia spinosa), False mesquite (Prosopis 

sp.), Catclaw Acacia (Acacia greggii), Desert hackberry 

(Celtis spinosa), Ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), 

Creosotebush (Larrea tridentata)

2,300ñ4,920 WarmTemperate

8ñ12

Interior Chaparral 3.4 Shrubñsclerophyll Shrub live oak (Quercus turbinella), Birchleaf mountain 

mahogany (Rosaceae Cerocarpus betuloides), Skunkbush 

3,445ñ6,070 WarmTemperate

15ñ25
3-13 

Vegetation Community BLM Land

(%)

Plant Growth 

Form Dominant Species Elevation(Feet) Climate Precipitation

(inches)

mahogany (Rosaceae Cerocarpus betuloides), Skunkbush 

sumac (Rhus trilobata), Silktassel (Garrya elliptica), Desert 

ceanothus (Ceanothus greggii), cliffrose (Purshia mexicana), 

Desert olive (Forestiera pubescensi), Sophoras , Arizona 

rosewood (Vauquelina californica), Sideoats gramma 

(Bouteloua curtipendula), Hairy gramma (Bouteloua hirsute), 

Cane bluestem (Bothriochloa barbinodes), Plains lovegrass 

(Eragrostis intermedia), Wolftail (Lycurus setosus), Single 

threeawn (Aristida schiedeana)

Temperate

Chihuahuan Desert 

Scrub

3.6 Shrubñ

microphyllous

Creosote (Larrea tridentata), Tarbush (Flourensia cernua), 

Whitethorn acacia (Acacia constrictai), several saltbushes 

(Atriplex sp.), Guayule (Parthenium argentatum), Ocotillo 

(Fouquieria splendens), Ratany (Krameria sp.), several 

Agrave and Yucca, Catclaw (Acacia greggii), Condalia, 

several Chollas (Opuntia sp.), Prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), and 

Hedgehog (Echinocereus sp), Turkís head (Echinocactus 

horizonthalonius), Pin cushion (Mamillaria vivipara), and 

Fish-hook cacti (Sclerocactus polyancistrus).

2,300ñ4,900 WarmTemperate

8ñ12

Riparian 1.4 Treeñdeciduous Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), Bigtooth maple (Acer 

grandidentatum), Narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus 

angustifolia), Box elder (Acer negundo), Black cherry 

(Prunus serotina), Arizona walnut (Juglans major), Velvet 

ash (Fraxinus velutina), Western soapberry (Sapindus 

saponaria), Red willow (Salix laevigata), Mesquite (Prosopis

sp.), Gooddings willow (Salix gooddingii), Netleaf hackberry 

(Celtis reticulata), Wrightís sycamore (Ficus sp.)

Various Various Various

Madrean Evergreen 

Woodland

0.5 Treeñmixed Emory oak (Quercus emoryi), Arizona white oak (Quercus 

arizonica), Alligator juniper (Juniperus deppeana), Oneseeded Juniper (Juniperus monosperma), Mexican pinyon 

(Pinus cembroides), Apache pine (Pinus engelmannii), 

Arizona pine (Pinus ponderosa var. arizonica), Pino triste 

(Pinus lumholtzii), Durango pine (Pinus sp.)

3,940ñ7,220 WarmTemperate

> 15

Montane Conifer Forest 0.2 Treeñconifer Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga 

menziesii), White pine (Pinus strobus), Limber pine (Pinus 

flexilis), Aspen (Populus sp.)

6,560ñ9,840 ColdTemperate

18ñ30
3-14 

The historic nature of wildfire in Arizona changed 

with the onset of European settlement. As such 

currentñday fire regimes for many vegetation 

communities have changed (Figure 3.6) in 

comparison with historic patterns (Figure 3.5). 

Livestock grazing and land cultivation caused fuel 

loads (i.e., the amount of standing live and dead 

vegetation) to be reduced and fragmented into 

smaller landscape units. Furthermore, the 

introduction of organized fire suppression caused a 

drastic decrease in fire occurrence and size (Brown 

2000). The exclusion of fire as a dominant 

ecological factor on many sites has caused significant 

changes in the character of vegetation communities 

such as species composition, structure, and standing 

biomass. Ironically, these changes have, in some 

instances, caused the vegetation community to be 

more fire prone. Plant successional pathways that 

have occurred on some sites would probably not have 

occurred prior to European settlement, where 

frequent fires suppressed woody vegetation 

establishment (Brown 2000). The increases in the 

density of woody species that have occurred on some 

sites, as well as the invasion of woody species onto 

sites where frequent fire used to preclude their 

establishment is probably a consequence of the 

alteration of historic fire regimes. Perhaps a change 

in the historic fire regime is, in part, responsible for 

the invasion of tarbush, whitethorn acacia, and 

creosotebush into Semidesert Grassland (Brown 

1982b). 

Wildfires can have significant environmental impacts 

on soils, fish, wildlife, timber resources, recreation, 

air and water quality, visual resources, archeological 

sites, homes and structures, utility corridors and 

facilities, and human welfare. The Wildland-Urban 

Interface (WUI) occurs where wildland vegetation 

and human structures interface or intermix with each 

other (Arno and Wakimoto 1987). The buildup of 

flammable vegetation including woody perennial 

(trees, shrubs), vegetation, forbs and annual weeds to 

hazardous levels is a concern in many areas of the 

state. Therefore, fire management and fuels 

reduction in the WUI is a priority. The creation of 

fuels breaks, infrastructure improvements, identifying 

communities at risk, fire suppression, and community 

outreach to encourage creation of defensible space 

around structures are some ways BLM attempts to 

reduce the risk of WUI fire. 

Considerable resources are required to mitigate the 

effects of wildfire on ecological resources and human 

welfare. The invasion of woody plants into new 

areas, and total exclusion of fire have increased fuel 

loadings, and the buildup of dead plant material. 

Increased fuel loadings, will influence and have an 

effect on wildfire severity and intensity. Wildfire 

intensity is related to flame length and the amount of 

heat released per second during a wildfire. Severity 

refers to post fire assessments of upward (intensity) 

and downward (heat per unit area) heat pulses. 

Various fuel treatments, including prescribed fire, 

mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments can 

be used to improve vegetation management for 

control of woody plant invasion and the buildup of 

fuels. The effectiveness of fuels control on BLM land 

is being weighed along with environmental concerns 

and consequences in a programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement analysis, Environmental Impact 

Statement for Vegetation Treatments, Watersheds 

and Wildlife Habitats on Public Lands Administered 

by the BLM in the Western United States, Including 

Alaska (Vegetation EIS). After fuels reduction 

treatments such as a prescribed fire or mechanical 

treatment, proper rehabilitation is often essential to 

deter the establishment of weeds and reduce soil 

erosion. Encouraging the growth and productivity of 

desirable vegetation will most likely inhibit the reestablishment of invasive weeds and minimize soil 

erosion.

 

3.2.3 Invasive and Noxious Weeds

Invasive and noxious weeds are an increasing 

problem on BLM lands. Invasive and noxious weeds 

rapidly displace desirable plants that provide habitat 

for wildlife and food for people and livestock. Some 

weeds are poisonous to wildlife, livestock, and 

people. Invasive and noxious weeds are plants that 

are not native to Arizona vegetation and were 

introduced accidentally or intentionally. Noxious 

weeds are listed by state and federal law and are 

generally considered those that are exotics and 

negatively impact agriculture, navigation, fish, 

wildlife, or public health (Howery and Ruyle 2002). 

Table 3.5 lists the Arizona regulated and restricted 

noxious weeds. However, there are other invasive 

weeds such as spotted knapweed, leafy spurge, 

cheatgrass, buffelgrass, red brome, and saltcedar that 

are not listed as noxious but still can be problematic 

on Arizona rangelands. These plants are considered 

invasive weeds because they displace and reduce the 

normal composition and productivity of native 

rangeland vegetation. In addition, they may raise the 

risk of wildland fire because of increased 

flammability and biomass accumulation in rangeland 

vegetation communities. 

Many noxious weeds were originally brought by 

European settlers inadvertently to the United States in 

grain seed, livestock feed and ship ballasts (Harvey 

and Ruyle 2002). Weeds slowly spread across the 


3-17 

country as different parts were settled. Accidental 

introductions have occurred, for example, through 

contaminated crop seed or livestock forage and 

include species such as cheatgrass and halogeton. 

Some invasive weeds were introduced for specific 

purposes such as livestock forage, horticultural or 

soil stabilization and they escaped into natural 

vegetation communities. Examples include 

buffelgrass and saltcedar. Invasive and noxious 

weeds are likely spread through a variety of 

mechanisms including: cross-country travel (Off 

Highway Vehicles (OHV), hiking, and camping 

activities and through the movement of wildlife 

and/or livestock. Invasive and noxious weeds my 

readily establish in highly disturbed areas (for 

instance, where the cumulative impacts of fire, 

grazing, and recreation activities are compounded). 

The spread of invasive weeds poses a hazard to 

vegetation communities on BLM rangelands because 

weeds can displace native plants as they compete for 

space, sunlight, water, and nutrients. As such, weeds 

can cause drastic changes in the composition, 

structure and productivity of vegetation communities. 

Also, weeds can alter the mix of native vegetation 

and reduce ungulate forage quality and quantity and 

some may even be poisonous to livestock. Finally, 

weeds high growth rate and flammability tend to 

increase the risk of wildfire to the vegetation 

community and structures in the WUI (Arno and 

Wakimoto 1987). Invasive weeds such as cheatgrass, 

red brome, and buffelgrass can alter fire regimes and 

cause fire re-occurrence to increase when they 

outcompete more fire-resistant native vegetation and 

provide flammable fuel between the interspaces 

among shrubs that allows the fire to carry in an 

unnatural manner (McAuliffe 1995, Brown 2000). 

The Great Basin Desert Scrub is divided into a 

sagebrush, shadscale, and blackbrush series which 

vary in fire ecology (McAuliffe 1995, Brown 2000). 

Wildfire in sagebrush communities has become 

important in recent years (Brown 2000). Historic fire 

in the shadscale and blackbrush communities was 

infrequent and years were required for the natural 

process to restore these communities after its 

occurrence. However, fire behavior in sagebrush 

communities is different. Sagebrush communities are 

usually heavily grazed by domestic and wild 

ungulates. The sagebrush plants themselves are often 

not grazed but associated palatable plants such as 

bunchgrasses and forbs are heavily grazed. Since the 

1900s, weedy annuals such as cheatgrass, Russian 

thistle, filaree, and tumble mustard have become 

established in areas where grazing has greatly 

reduced the native vegetation. Historic fire has been 

considered to be a minor component of sagebrush 

communities before settlement. But in the last half of 

the 1900s, fire became a dominant force in sagebrush 

communities where cheatgrass provides significant 

fuel to carry fire. In addition, sagebrush is also 

flammable because of volatile leaf oils. The highly 

flammable cheatgrass increases in response to 

overgrazing and fire and provides sufficient 

competition to reduce perennial bunchgrass cover. 

This cycle is repeated with successive fire and with 

each cycle cheatgrass and other weeds usually 

become more abundant and colonize new sites. 

Sagebrush usually does not recover sufficiently after 

fire because it re-establishes from seed and rootñ

sprouting species such as rabbitbrush, horsebrush, 

and snakeweed become established more quickly. 

Invasive weed control to reduce fire hazard can occur 

by a variety of ways including chemical, prescribed 

fire, biological, and mechanical or a combination of 

techniques (Howery and Ruyle 2002). The control 

of noxious weeds on BLM lands is being evaluated in 

Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation 

Treatments, Watersheds and Wildlife Habitats on 

Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the 

Western United States, Including Alaska (Vegetation 

EIS). After any weed control treatment such as a 

prescribed fire or mechanical treatment, proper 

rehabilitation is essential to deter the re-establishment 

of weeds. Encouraging the growth and productivity 

of desirable vegetation will most likely inhibit the reestablishment of invasive weeds. The degree and 

type of rehabilitation management required will 

depend of the nature and severity of the weed control 

treatment. Changes in grazing practices may be all 

that is needed on rangelands where minimal weed 

control has been implemented. However, rangelands 

where wildfire or prescribed burns have occurred will 

need aggressive rehabilitation practices to reduce the 

chances of weed domination before desirable plants 

can become established. Implementation may 

include soil erosion control and the seeding of 

desirable native and non-native perennial grasses and 

perhaps shrubs and forbs. Appropriate seed mixtures 

of native and non-native plants seeded at appropriate 

times are effective in becoming quickly established 

and not allowing weed seedlings to take root.
3-18 

Table 3.5 ñ Arizona Regulated and Restricted Noxious Weeds

Species Common Name State Designation

Cenchrus echinatus Southern sandbur Regulated

Cendhrus incertus Field sandbur Regulated

Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Regulated

Medicago polymorpha Burclover Regulated

Portulaca oleracea Common purslane Regulated

Tribulus terrestris Puncturevine Regulated

Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed Restricted 

Aegilops cylindrica Jointed goatgrass Restricted 

Alhagi maurorum Camelthorn Restricted 

Cardaria draba Globed-podded hoary cress (Whitetop) Restricted 

Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed Restricted 

Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed Restricted 

Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle Restricted 

Cuscuta spp Dodder Restricted 

Eichhornia crassipes Floating waterhyacinth Restricted 

Elymus repens Quackgrass Restricted 

Halogeton glomeratus Halogeton Restricted 

Helianthus ciliaris Texas blueweed Restricted 

Ipomoea triloba Three-lobed morning glory Restricted 

Linaria dalmatica Dalmation toadflax Restricted 

Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle Restricted 

3.2.4 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and 

Burros

Wild horses and burros are protected by the Wild and 

Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-

195), as amended by the FLPMA and the Public 

Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-514). 

After the passage of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming 

Horse and Burro Act, BLM became the managing 

agency responsible for protecting the wild burros and 

their habitat. The first wild burros were gathered in 

Arizona in 1977 around Alamo Lake in west central 

Arizona. Since 1977, more than 12,000 wild burros 

have been captured and removed from the public 

rangelands in western Arizona. In order to maintain 

their population around 2,000 animals (a level that 

their desert habitat can support), BLM continues its 

population control program by rounding up excess 

burros and offering them to the public through the 

Adopt-A-Burro Program. 

The BLM manages two small wild horse herds in 

Arizona, one in the Cerbat Mountains, located 

northwest of Kingman (within the Kingman Field 

Office), and one between the Cibola National 

Wildlife Refuge and the U.S. Armyís Yuma Proving 

Ground (within the Yuma Field Office). There are 4 

Herd Areas (HS) and 7 Herd Management Areas 

(HMA) managed by BLM in Arizona, containing 210 

wild horses and 2,500 wild burros. These areas are 

the Tassi-Gold Butte HMA (Arizona Strip FO); Big 

Sandy HMA, Black Mountain HMA and Cerbat HA 

(Kingman FO); Harquahala HA, Lake Pleasant 

HMA, and Painted Rock HA (Phoenix FO); Alamo 

HMA and Havasu HMA (Lake Havasu FO); and 

Cibola-Trigo HMA and Little Harquahala HA (Yuma 

FO). Five of the areas are described in the Affected 

Environment section of current Land Use Plans. 

Descriptions of these five areas are incorporated here 

by reference and descriptions for the remaining 

HMAs are included in Appendix E. 

3.2.5 Fish And Wildlife 

Resources

General Wildlife Habitat

Arizona sits at the junction of several physiographic 

provinces, including the four American deserts 

(Chihuahan, Great Basin, Mohave, and Sonoran), 

Colorado plateau, Rocky Mountains, and Sierra 

Madre. This diversity in habitat types creates 

tremendous wildlife diversity on public lands within 

the state. BLM manages 12 million acres of both big 
3-19 

and small game habitat, 30,000 acres of waterfowl 

and wetland habitat, 813 miles of streams, and 21,890 

acres of riparian vegetation within Arizona. These 

habitats provide a wide range of variability in 

vegetation species composition, structural 

components, and food quality and availability, 

thereby hosting abundant wildlife. More than 800 

species of fish, amphibians, birds, reptiles and 

mammals occur in Arizona as year-round residents, 

seasonal residents, or migrants. This diversity has 

strong ecological value and attraction for the public.

Within these broad habitats are relatively small 

amounts of wetland/riparian habitat. Although 

riparian areas make up less than two percent of the 

public lands in Arizona, they are one of the most 

productive and important habitats, providing for an 

even greater diversity of wildlife species. Much of 

the native riparian habitats on public lands within 

Arizona have been severely fragmented, degraded or 

otherwise substantially altered from a variety of 

causes, thereby affecting the wildlife populations and 

species that inhabit them. In some cases, upland 

portions of watersheds have also been degraded, 

exacerbating impacts at lower elevations, especially 

on streams, rivers and riparian habitats. Many 

riparian-obligate wildlife species, as well as many 

native fish species, are either Federally listed or are 

considered special status species by the Federal 

government (USFWS and BLM) or state wildlife 

agencies in Arizona and California (for public lands 

in California managed by the Yuma and Lake Havasu 

Field Offices). 

The structure, composition, and condition of the 

various habitat types directly influence the fish and 

wildlife species assemblages that inhabit them. Fireadapted vegetation communities comprise 

approximately 40 percent of wildlife habitats on 

BLM-administered lands in Arizona. These habitats 

and their availability on public lands are: Great Basin 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland (12.2%), Great Basin 

Desert Scrub (8.5%), Plains and Great Basin 

Grassland (6.0%), Semi-desert grassland (6.0%), 

Interior Chapparal (3.4%), Madrean Evergreen 

Woodland (0.5%), and Montane Conifer Forests 

(0.2%). Many of these fire-adapted vegetation 

communities are overgrown with dense shrubs and 

young trees because they have been subjected to a 

regime of aggressive fire suppression and fire 

exclusion. Non-fire adapted communities comprise 

approximately 60 percent of habitats on BLMadministered lands, including Lower Colorado River 

(21.8%) and Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub (26.2%), 

Mohave Desert Scrub (9.3%), Chihuahuan Desert 

Scrub (3.6%), and riparian habitats (1.4%). 

However, because of the proliferation of non-native 

plants, many of the non-fire adapted communities, 

such as Sonoran Desert Scrub, Mohave Desert Scrub, 

and riparian habitats, are threatened by wildfires. 

The altered conditions of both the fire-adapted and 

non-fire adapted vegetation communities have left 

these communities, and their fish and wildlife 

inhabitants, at high risk of unnatural, high-intensity 

wildfire events.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) is 

responsible for managing wildlife populations 

throughout Arizona. The BLM coordinates closely 

with the AGFD to manage the diverse habitats that 

sustain these wildlife populations2

. Many of the 

Arizona BLM Field Offices have developed Habitat 

Management Plans (HMPs), or other interdisciplinary 

activity plans, in cooperation with the AGFD, that 

outline the goals and actions for managing wildlife 

habitats and populations on public lands in the state. 

Wildlife habitats and priority wildlife species within 

the management areas of the BLM Field Offices in 

Arizona are discussed in these HMPs and the LUPs 

listed at the beginning of Section 3, and are 

incorporated here by reference.

Game Species, Predators, and Furbearers

Big game species are an important aesthetic and 

economic resource in Arizona (Silberman 2003). On 

BLM administered lands, 12 big game species (or 

subspecies) occupy a variety of habitat types. Habitat 

management is achieved cooperatively between the 

BLM and the AGFD. One or more small game 

species occur in virtually all vegetation types 

throughout Arizona. Small game species commonly 

found in many Arizona habitats include upland game 

birds (e.g., pigeons, doves, quail, etc.), cottontail 

rabbits, and squirrels, as well as a wide variety of 

waterfowl species. Waterfowl species, including 

ducks, geese, coots, and gallinules, nest in Arizona, 

are found primarily in the natural and modified 

marshes found above the Mogollon Rim and in the 

White Mountains. Many waterfowl species also 

migrate through or winter in wetland habitats on 

public lands in Arizona. There are an additional 16 

mammals which are classified as predators and/or 

furbearers. These game species, predators, and 

furbearers inhabit the variety of both fire-adapted and 

 

2 Master Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between 

the State of Arizona, Arizona Game and Fish Commission 

and the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. Effective date March 18, 1987. 10 pp.
3-20 

fire-threatened habitats on public lands in Arizona. 

Habitat information for these species is summarized 

in Appendix C.

Nongame Wildlife

Arizona has a diverse, abundant mammalian fauna, 

including 134 species of mammals native to the state, 

and 11 more species that have successfully been 

introduced. While the distribution, ecology, and 

habitat needs of many of the nongame mammals, are 

poorly understood, these species occupy a variety of 

habitats on public lands in Arizona (AGFD 2001). 

Many of these species have small, local populations 

that face a variety of threats, and some are tied to the 

severely altered riparian or native grassland 

communities (AGFD 2001).

Over 500 native bird species occupy the diverse 

habitats of Arizona, of which approximately 470 are 

nongame species. An additional 7 non-native species 

have also become established here. At least 296 

native and 11 non-native bird species have been 

documented breeding at least once within the state 

(AGFD Nongame Branch, pers. comm.). Arizona 

provides habitats for roughly 240 species of 

neotropical migratory birds, which breed in the 

United States and/or Canada and winter from Mexico 

to South America, of which 165 nest in the state 

regularly or irregularly (AGFD 2001). Forty-one 

raptor and owl species have been documented in 

Arizona, 33 of which occur year-round or breed in 

the state. An additional two vulture species and the 

re-introduced California condor also occur in the 

state. The greatest variety of species, and often 

numbers, of birds in Arizona occurs in the riparian 

and wetland habitats, which often provide oases 

within the upland habitats.

Many Arizona amphibians and reptiles are abundant 

and seasonally conspicuous, especially the desertdwelling species. Among them are such commonly 

encountered species as spadefoot toads; whiptail 

lizards; side-blotched, tree, and desert spiny lizards; 

gopher and king snakes; and western diamondback 

and mojave rattlesnakes. Two non-native species, the 

bullfrog and softshell turtle, have also become 

widespread and locally abundant. The distribution 

and status of many of the rest of Arizonaís 26 species 

of native amphibians and 103 species of native 

reptiles is not well known (AGFD 2001). Many of 

the desert-dwelling species occupy the desert scrub 

habitats that are not fire-adapted, but now support 

wildfires that burn hotter and farther than their 

historical fire regime.

Fish

The number and variety of streams, rivers, lakes and 

reservoirs occurring on public lands support a quality 

sportfishing experience in Arizona, including 

providing habitat for approximately 27 species of 

sportfish (see Appendix C). Of the species 

commonly sought by Arizona anglers, eight are cool 

or coldwater fish, and 19 are warmwater species. 

Arizona has more than 160 stream management 

reaches that have a combined length of nearly 1,500 

miles, as well as 3,000 acres in 64 lakes that are 

managed, primarily, for trout. Ten other lakes and an 

additional 34 miles in stream length (within four 

rivers) are managed primarily for warmwater species 

and secondarily for trout (AGFD 2001). Activities 

occurring on upland terrestrial habitats can affect the 

water quality and other attributes of these diverse 

aquatic habitats.

The 32 native fishes of Arizona include 30 freshwater 

and two saltwater species (AGFD 2001). Of these 

fish species, one is extinct and almost 75 percent are 

Federally protected by the Endangered Species Act, 

as amended, or are listed as Wildlife of Special 

Concern by the AGFD. Occurrences of the two 

saltwater species, machete (Elops affinis regan) and 

striped mullet (Mugil cephalus linnaeus), vary with 

flows of the lower Colorado River as dams, water 

management, and floods permit.

3.2.6 Special Status Plant and 

Wildlife Species

Special status species include Federally listed 

(endangered or threatened), proposed, and candidate 

species, and designated or proposed critical habitat; 

species of concern managed under Conservation 

Agreements or Management Plans; state-listed 

species; and BLM-sensitive species. Several special 

status species occurring within the management areas 

of the BLM Field Offices in Arizona are discussed in 

the LUPs referenced at the beginning of Section 3.0, 

and are incorporated here by reference. However, 

additional species and critical habitats have been 

added to or have changed Federal status under the 

Endangered Species Act since the time these plans 

were written. These additional species are now 

considered special status species to BLM.

For species with Federal status under the ESA 

(ìFederally protected speciesî), 30 endangered 

species, 12 threatened species, one species proposed 

for listing, and five species that are candidates for 

listing inhabit either BLM-administered lands in 

Arizona or adjacent Federal, state, reservation, or 
3-21 

private lands that could be affected by fire 

management activities (see Table 3.6). Of these 48 

species, 9 are known to occur only on lands adjacent 

to BLM-administered lands, and three species 

(northern aplomado falcon, ocelot, and black-tailed 

prairie dog) are currently extirpated from Arizona, 

but may re-establish within the state either naturally 

or through reintroductions within the next 10-15 

years. These Federally protected species can be 

grouped as follows: two amphibians, 10 birds, 14 

fish, 12 flowering plants, eight mammals, and two 

reptiles. 

Three species (Flat-tailed horned lizard, Paradine 

plains cactus, and Virgin spinedace) occurring on 

public lands in Arizona do not have Federal status 

under the ESA, but are Federal species of concern 

managed under Conservation Agreements that BLM 

participates in. The Sonoran population of the desert 

tortoise has no Federal status, but is a species of 

concern managed by BLM under the Management 

Plan for the Sonoran Desert Population of the Desert 

Tortoise in Arizona (Arizona Interagency Desert 

Tortoise Team 1996). In addition, 202 plant and 

wildlife species that are either state species of 

concern in Arizona, state-listed in California (for 

lands in the Lake Havasu and Yuma Field Offices), 

or BLM-sensitive species also occur on or near 

BLM-administered lands within the action area of the 

proposed Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment (see 

Table 3.7). BLM considers these additional plant 

and animal species as priority species in management 

of public lands. 

Brief descriptions of each of the Federally listed, 

proposed, and candidate species, as well as the 

Conservation Agreement and Management Plan 

species, are provided in Appendix F. 

3.3 Social and Economic 

Environment

3.3.1 Cultural and Paleontological 

Resources

Cultural resources are locations of human activity, 

occupation or use. They include archeological, 

historic, and architectural sites with important public 

and scientific uses. They also include places of 

traditional cultural or religious importance to Native 

Americans and other cultural groups. Numerous 

authorities provide a basis for making decisions on 

actions that could affect cultural resources, including 

(but not limited to) the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA), as amended, the American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act, the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act, and Executive Order 

13007, ìIndian Sacred Sitesî. 

Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing 

regulations (36 CFR 800) require Federal agencies to 

take into account the effects of their undertakings on 

historic properties. As defined in 36 CFR 800.14, a 

historic property is ìany prehistoric or historic 

district, site, building, structure, or object included in, 

or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of 

Historic Places...î The term also encompasses 

artifacts, records, and remains related to such 

properties. Compliance with Section 106 of the 

NHPA will be completed on a project-specific basis 

before decisions are made to carry out fire 

management activities that could affect cultural 

resources. 

Identification and context for cultural resources are 

included in the Land Use Plans referenced at the 

beginning of Section 3.0, and are incorporated herein 

by reference. The following updates those 

discussions and provides a general overview of the 

wide range of prehistoric, historic, and traditional 

cultural/religious sites that occur on BLM-managed 

lands throughout Arizona. Appendix G describes 

the site types known to occur within the state and on 

BLM-managed land, snd also provides a chronology 

of human occupation in the state. 

The BLM manages approximately 11.6 million acres 

of land in Arizona. Over 700,000 acres have been 

inventoried for cultural resources, with over 10,500 

sites recorded. Nineteen Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs) encompassing 

297,483 acres have been designated entirely or partly 

to provide management and protection of cultural 

resources. Three National Conservation Areas 

(NCAs) contain numerous cultural resources, 

including the Lehner Mammoth Kill Site, a National 

Historic Landmark. Lands administered by the 

BLMís Arizona State Office currently include 

nineteen National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) listings containing 362 historic properties. 

These properties are listed in Table 3.8.

BLMís existing LUPs describe site types and general 

distribution throughout the individual planning areas. 

It is important to note that these represent known sites 

only, given that relatively small portions of the 

planning areas have been subjected to cultural 

resource surveys. A general listing of selected 

cultural resource localities on BLM-managed lands 

not discussed in this section is provided in Appendix 

G. Individual fire management activities carried out
3-22

Table 3.6 ñ 

Federally Listed, Proposed, and Threatened Species in Arizona Considered in the Affected Environment for 

the Proposed Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment

Common Name Scientific Name Statusa Vegetation Community Countyb BLM Field Office(s)c

Amphibians (2 species)

Chiricahua leopard frog Rana chiricahuensis Threatened Riparian/Aquatic within 

Montane Conifer Forest, 

Madrean Evergreen Woodland, 

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland

Apache, Cochise, 

Coconino, Gila, 

Graham, Greenlee, 

Navajo, Pima, Santa 

Cruz, Yavapai

Arizona Strip, Phoenix, Safford, 

Tucson

Relict leopard frog Rana onca Candidate Riparian/Aquatic within 

Mohave Desert scrub

Mohave Arizona Strip

Birds (10 species)

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl Glaucidium brasilianum 

cactorum

Endangered, 

Proposed Critical 

habitat

Upper Sonoroan Desert Scrub, 

Riparian

Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, 

Santa Cruz, Yuma

Phoenix, Tucson, Yuma

California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis 

californicus

Endangered Riparian/Aquatic Apache, Cochise, 

Coconino, Gila, 

Graham, Greenlee, La 

Paz, Maricopa, 

Mohave, Navajo, Pima, 

Pinal, Santa Cruz, 

Yavapai, Yuma

Arizona Strip, Lake Havasu, 

Kingman, Phoenix, Safford, Tucson, 

Yuma

California condor Gymnogyps californianus Endangered, 10(j) 

species

Great Basin Desert Scrub, Great 

Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland

Apache, Coconino, La 

Paz, Mohave, Navajo

Arizona Strip, Phoenix

Masked bobwhite Colinus virginianus 

ridgewayi

Endangered Semidesert Grassland Pima Phoenix
3-23

Common Name Scientific Name Statusa Vegetation Community Countyb BLM Field Office(s)c

Northern aplomado falcon Falco femoralis 

septentrionalis

Endangered Semidesert Grassland Cochise, Santa Cruz, 

Yuma

Safford, Tucson,Yuma

Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii 

extimus

Endangered Riparian Apache, Cochise, 

Coconino, Gila, 

Graham, Greenlee, 

La Paz, Maricopa, 

Mohave, Pima, Pinal, 

Santa Cruz, Yavapai, 

Yuma

Arizona Strip, Lake Havasu, 

Kingman, Phoenix, Safford, 

Tucson,Yuma

Yuma clapper rail Rallus longirostris 

yumanensis

Endangered Riparian La Paz, Maricopa, 

Mohave, Pinal, Yuma

Lake Havasu, Phoenix, Yuma

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened Upper Sonoran Desert Scrub, 

Riparian

Apache, Cochise, 

Coconino, Gila, 

Graham, La Paz, 

Maricopa, Mohave, 

Navajo, Pima, Pinal, 

Santa Cruz, Yavapai, 

Yuma

Arizona Strip, Lake Havasu, 

Kingman, Phoenix, Safford, Tucson, 

Yuma

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened, 

Critical habitat

Great Basin Desert Scrub, Great 

Baisn Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland, Madrean Evergreen 

Woodland, Montane Conifer 

Forest

Apache, Cochise, 

Coconino, Gila, 

Graham, Greenlee, 

Maricopa, Mohave, 

Navajo, Pima, Pinal, 

Santa Cruz, Yavapai

Arizona Strip, Kingman, 

Phoenix, Safford, Tucson

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Candidate Riparian Apache, Cochise, 

Coconino, Gila, 

Graham, Greenlee, 

La Paz, Maricopa, 

Mohave, Pima, Pinal, 

Santa Cruz, Yavapai, 

Yuma

Arizona Strip, Lake Havasu, 

Kingman, Phoenix, Safford, Tucson, 

Yuma
3-24

Common Name Scientific Name Statusa Vegetation Community Countyb BLM Field Office(s)c

Fish (14 species)

Bonytail chub Gila elegans Endangered, 

Critical habitat

Riparian/Aquatic within 

Sonoran Desert Scrub

La Paz, Mohave Lake Havasu, Kingman

Desert pupfish Cyprinodon macularius Endangered, 

Critical habitat

Riparian/Aquatic within Upper 

Sonoran Desert scrub

Graham, La Paz, 

Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, 

Santa Cruz, Yavapai

Lake Havasu, Phoenix, Safford, 

Tucson

Gila topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis 

occidentalis

Endangered Riparian/Aquatic within Upper 

Sonoran Desert Scrub

Gila, Graham, La Paz, 

Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, 

Santa Cruz, Yavapai

Lake Havasu, Phoenix, Safford, 

Tucson

Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus Endangered, 

Critical habitat

Riparian/Aquatic within 

Mohave Desert Scrub, Lower 

Sonoran Desert Scrub, Great 

Basin Desert Scrub, Semi-desert 

Grassland

La Paz, Maricopa, 

Mohave

Lake Havasu, Kingman, Phoenix

Virgin River chub Gila seminuda Endangered, 

Critical habitat

Riparian/Aquatic within

Mohave Desert Scrub, Great 

Basin Desert Scrub, Great Basin 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland

Mohave Arizona Strip

Woundfin Plagopterus 

argentissimus

Endangered, 

Critical habitat. 

Future 10(j) 

populations.

Riparian/Aquatic within 

Mohave Desert Scrub, Great 

Basin Desert Scrub, Great Basin 

Pinyon Juniper Woodland

Mohave Arizona Strip

Yaqui chub Gila purpurea Endangered, 

Critical habitat

Riparian/Aquatic within 

Semidesert Grassland, 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub

Cochise Safford

Yaqui topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis 

sonoriensis

Endangered Riparian/Aquatic within 

Semidesert Grassland, 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub

Cochise Safford

Beautiful shiner Cyprinella formosa Threatened, 

Critical habitat

Riparian/Aquatic within 

Semidesert Grassland, 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub

Cochise Safford

Little Colorado spinedace Lepidomeda vittata Threatened, 

Critical habitat

Riparian/Aquatic within Plains 

and Great Basin Grassland, 

Great Basin Pinyon Juniper 

Woodland

Apache, Coconino, 

Navajo

Phoenix
3-25

Common Name Scientific Name Statusa Vegetation Community Countyb BLM Field Office(s)c

Loach minnow Tiaroga cobitis Threatened, 

Critical habitat

Riparian/Aquatic within 

Sonoran Desert Scrub, 

Chihuhuan Desert Scrub, 

Semidesert Grassland

Apache, *Cochise, 

Graham, Greenlee, 

Gila, *Pima, Pinal, 

Navajo, *Yavapai

Phoenix, Safford, Tucson

Spikedace Meda fulgida Threatened, 

Critical habitat

Riparian/Aquatic within 

Sonoran Desert Scrub, 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub, 

Semidesert Grassland

*Apache, *Cochise, 

Graham, Greenlee, 

*Gila, *Pima, Pinal, 

Yavapai

Phoenix, Safford, Tucson

Yaqui catfish Ictalurus pricei Threatened, 

Critical habitat

Riparian/Aquatic within 

Semidesert Grassland, 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub

Cochise Safford

Gila chub Gila intermedia Proposed 

Endangered, 

Proposed Critical 

habitat

Riparian/Aquatic within 

Semidesert Grassland, Interior 

Chaparral

Cochise, Coconino, 

Gila, Graham, 

Greenlee, Maricopa, 

Pima, Pinal, Santa 

Cruz, Yavapai

Phoenix, Safford, Tucson

Flowering Plants (12 species)

Arizona cliffrose Purshia subintegra Endangered Upper Sonoran Desert Scrub Graham, Maricopa, 

Mohave, Yavapai

Kingman, Phoenix, Safford

Brady pincushion cactus Pediocactus bradyi Endangered Great Baisn Desert Scrub Coconino Arizona Strip

Holmgren (Paradox) milk vetch Astragalus 

holmgreniorum

Endangered Great Basin Desert Scrub Mohave Arizona Strip

Huachuca water umbel Lilaeopsis schaffneriana 

ssp. recurva

Endangered, 

Critical habitat

Riparian/Aquatic Cochise, Pima, Santa 

Cruz

Safford, Tucson

Kearneyís blue-star Amsonia kearneyana Endangered Madrean Evergreen Woodland, 

Interior Chaparral, 

Riparian/Aquatic

Pima Phoenix

Nichol Turkís head cactus Echinocactus 

horizonthalonius var. 

nicholii

Endangered Upper Sonoran Desert Scrub Pima, Pinal Tucson

Peebles Navajo cactus Pediocactus peeblesianus 

var. peeblesianus

Endangered Plains and Great Basin 

Grassland, Great Basin Desert 

Scrub

Navajo Safford
3-26

Common Name Scientific Name Statusa Vegetation Community Countyb BLM Field Office(s)c

Pima pineapple cactus Coryphantha scheeri var. 

robustispina

Endangered Upper Snoran Desert Scrub, 

Semidesert Grassland

Pima, Santa Cruz Tucson

Jones cycladenia Cycladenia humilis var. 

jonesii

Threatened Great Basin pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland, Great Basin Desert 

Scrub

Mohave Arizona Strip

Siler pincushion cactus Pediocactus sileri Threatened Plains and Great Basin 

Grassland, Great Basin Pinyon 

Juniper Woodland

Coconino, Mohave Arizona Strip

Acuna cactus Echinomastus 

erectocentrus var. 

acunensis

Candidate Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub, 

Upper Sonoran Desert Scrub

Pima, Pinal Tucson

Fickeisen plains cactus Pediocactus peeblesianus 

var. fickeiseniae

Candidate Plains and Great Basin 

Grassland, Great Basin Desert 

Scrub

Coconino, Mohave Arizona Strip
3-27

Mammals (8 species)

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes Endangered, 10(j) 

species

Plains and Great Plains 

Grassland

Apache, Coconino, 

Navajo

Phoenix

Hualapai Mexican vole Microtus mexicanus 

hualpaiensis

Endangered Great Basin pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland, Interior Chaparral

Mohave, Coconino, 

Yavapai

Kingman, Phoenix

Jaguar Panthera onca Endangered Madrean Evergreen Woodland, 

Semi-desert Grassland, Montane 

Conifer Forest, Sonoran Desert 

Scrub

Cochise, Santa Cruz, 

Pima

Tucson, Safford

Lesser long-nosed bat Leptonycteris curasoae 

yerbabuenae

Endangered Semidesert Grassland, Sonoran 

Desert Scrub, Chihuahuan 

Desert Scrub

Cochise, Gila, Graham, 

Pima, Pinal, Maricopa, 

Santa Cruz 

Phoenix, Safford, Tucson

Mexican gray wolf Canis lupus baileyi Endangered, 10(j) 

species

Madrean Evergreen Woodland, 

Montane Conifer Forest

Apache, Cochise, 

Coconino, Greenlee, 

Pima, Santa Cruz

Phoenix, Safford, Tucson

Ocelot Leopardus (=Felis) 

pardalis

Endangered Chaparral, Desert Scrub, 

Riparian

Cochise, Pima, Santa 

Cruz

Safford, Tucson

Sonoran pronghorn Antilocapra americana 

sonoriensis

Endangered Sonoran Desert Scrub Pima, Maricopa, Yuma Phoenix, Yuma

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Candidate Plains and Great Basin 

Grassland

Cochise, Graham, Pima Safford, Tucson

Reptiles (2 species) 

Desert tortoise, Mojave 

population

Gopherus agassizii 

(xerobates)

Threatened Mohave Desert Scrub, Lower 

Sonoran Desert Scrub

Mohave (AZ), San 

Bernardino, Riverside, 

Imperial (CA)

Arizona Strip, Lake Havasu, Yuma

New Mexico ridgenose 

rattlesnake

Crotalus willardi 

obscurus

Threatened Madrean Evergreen Woodland, 

Montane Conifer Forest

Cochise Safford

Conservation Agreement and Management Agreement Species

Flat-tailed horned lizard Phrynosoma mcallii Conservation 

Agreement

Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub Yuma Yuma

Paradine (Kaibab) plains cactus Pediocactus paradinei Conservation 

Agreement

Great Basin Desert Scrub, Great 

Basin Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland, Plains and Great 

Basin Grassland, Montane 

Conifer Forest

Coconino Arizona Strip
3-28

Virgin spinedace Lepidomeda mollispinis 

mollispinis

Conservation 

Agreement

Riparian/Aquatic, Mohave 

Desert Scrub

Mohave Arizona Strip

Desert tortoise, Sonoran 

population

Gopherus agassizii 

(xerobates)

Management 

Agreement

Sonoran Desert Scrub Cochise, Gila, Graham, 

La Paz, Maricopa, 

Mohave, Pima, Pinal, 

Santa Cruz, Yavapai, 

Yuma

Lake Havasu, Kingman, Phoenix, 

Safford, Tucson, Yuma

a Species listed as ì10(j) speciesî are designated experimental/non -essential populations under Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. This designation provides greater management 

flexibility. For BLM, 10(j) populations of Federally listed species are equivalent to a ìproposedî status.

b Counties with an asterik (*) have designated critical habitat, but presently contain no known existing populations of the fish species.

c Species within the BLM Field Office management boundaries may be on BLM-administered lands or on adjacent lands within the Affected Environment.
3-29 

Table 3.7 ñ 

BLM and State species of concern in Arizona and California considered in the planning area for 

the Proposed Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment1

 

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Mammals

Allenís (Mexican) big-eared bat Idionycteris phyllotis BLM

Arizona myotis Myotis lucifugus occultus BLM

Arizona shrew Sorex arizonae AZSc

Big free-tailed bat Myctinomops macrotis BLM, CASc

California leaf-nosed bat Macrotus californicus BLM, AZSc, CASc

Camp Verde Arizona cotton rat Sigmodon arizonae arizonae AZSc

Cave myotis Myotis velifer BLM, CASc

Chihuahuan pronghorn Antilocapra americana mexicana AZSc

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes BLM

Houserock Valley chisel-toothed kangaroo rat Dipodomys microps leucotis BLM, AZSc

Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis BLM

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans BLM

Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius AZSc

Merriamís elk Cervus elaphus merriami AZSc

Mexican long-tongued bat Choeronycteris mexicana BLM, AZSc, CASc

Navajo Mexican vole Microtus mexicanus navaho AZSc

New Mexico banner-tailed kangaroo rat Dipodomys spectablis baileyi AZSc

Occult little brown bat Myotis lucifugus occultus BLM, CASc

Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus BLM, CASc

Sanbornís long-nosed bat Leptonycteris sanborni AZSc

Southwestern river otter Lontra canadensis sonora AZSc

Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum BLM

Southern yellow bat Lasiurus ega AZSc

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum BLM, AZSc, CASc

Underwoodís mastiff bat Eumops underwoodi BLM

Water shrew Sorex palustris AZSc

Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii AZSc

Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus AZSc

Yuma mountain lion Puma concolor browni AZSc, CASc

Birds

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus AZSc

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla AZSc

American peregrine falcon Falcoperegrinus anatum CAE

Arizonaís bell vireo Vireo belli arizonae CAE

Bairdís sparrow Ammodramus bairdii AZSc

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon AZSc

Black-bellied whistling-duck Dendrocygna autumnalis AZSc

Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia AZSc

Black-capped gnatcatcher Polioptila nigriceps AZSc

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia (burrow sites) CASc

California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis 

coturniculus

AZSc, CAT

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus AZSc

Buff-breasted flycatcher Empidonax fulvifrons AZSc

Clarkís grebe Aechmophorus clarki AZSc

Common black-hawk Buteogallus anthracinus AZSc

Crested caracara Buteogallus anthracinus AZSc

Elegant trogon Trogon elegans AZSc

Elf owl Micrathene whitneyi CAE
3-30 

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis AZSc

Fulvus whistling duck Dendrocygna bicolor BLM

Gila woodpecker Melanerpes uropygialis CAE

Gilded flicker Colaptes chrysoides CAE

Great egret Casmerodius albus AZSc

Great sandhill crane Grus Canadensis tabida CAT

Grey catbird Dumetella carolinensis AZSc

Grey hawk Buteo nitidus AZSc

Large-billed savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

rostratus

BLM, CASc

Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis AZSc

 Le Conteís thrasher Toxostoma lecontei CASc

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BLM

Mississippi kite Ictinia mississippiensis AZSc

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles AZSc

Northern greyhawk Buteo nitidus maximus BLM

Osprey Pandion haliaetus AZSc

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus AZSc

Pine grosbeak Pinicola enucleator AZSc

Rose-throated becard Pachyramphus agliae AZSc

Snowy egret Egretta thula AZSc

Snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus AZSc

Spragueís pipit Polioptila nigriceps AZSc

Swainsonís hawk Buteo swainsoni CAT

Thick-billed kingbird Tyrannus crassirostris AZSc

Thick-billed parrot Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha AZSc

Tropical kingbird Tyrannus melancholicus AZSc

Veery Catharus fuscescens AZSc

Violet-crowned hummingbird Amazilia violiceps AZSc

Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugea BLM

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi BLM, CASc

Amphibians and Reptiles

Arizona ridge-nosed rattlesnake Crotalus willardi willardi AZSc

Arizona skink Eumeces gilberti arizonensis BLM, AZSc

Arizona toad Bufo microscaphus CAProt

Banded Gila monster Heloderma suspectum cinctum BLM

Barking frog Eleutherodactylus augusti AZSc

Brown vine snake Ocybelis aeneus AZSc

Canyon spotted whiptail Cnemidophorus burti BLM

Chuckwalla Sauromalus ater BLM

Giant spotted whiptail Cnemidophorus burti 

stictogrammus

BLM

Great Plains narrow-mouthed toad Gastrophryne olivacea AZSc

Lowland burrowing treefrog Pternohyla fodiens AZSc

Lowland leopard frog Rana yavapaiensis AZSC, CASc, CAProt

Massasuaga Sistrurus catenatus AZSc

Mexican garter snake Thamnophis eques AZSc

Mojave fringe-toed lizard Uma scoparia AZSc

Narrow-headed garter snake Thamnophis rufipunctatus AZSc

Northern casque-headed frog Pternohyla fodiens AZSc

Northern sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus graciosus BLM

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens AZSc

Plains leopard frog Rana blairi AZSc

Redback whiptail Cnemidophorus burti xanthonotus BLM
3-31 

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Rosy boa Charina trivirgata BLM

Sonoran desert fringe-toed lizard Uma notata AZSc

Tarahumara frog Rana tarahumarae AZSc

Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma corutum BLM

Yuma desert fringe-toed lizard Uma notata rufopunctata BLM, AZSc

Fish

Arizona stoneroller Campostoma ornatum pricei AZSc

Desert sucker Cotostomus clarki BLM

Little Colorado sucker Catostomus sp. BLM, AXSc

Longfin dace Agosia chrysogaster BLM

Mexican stoneroller Campostoma ornatum AZSc

Quitobaquito desert pupfish Cyprinodon eremus AZSc

Santa Cruz pupfish Cyprinodon arcuatus AZSc

Sonora sucker Cotostomus insignis BLM

Speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus BLM

Invertebrates 

Arizona giant sand treader cricket Daihinibaenetes arizonensis BLM

Cheese-weed moth lacewing Oliarces clara BLM

Chiriahua water scavenger beetle Cymbiodyta arizonica BLM

Cockerellís striate disc (snail) Discus shemeki cockerelli BLM

Ydrobiid springsnails All species in genus Pyrgulopsis BLM

MacNeill sooty wing skipper Hesperopsis gracielae BLM

Maricopa Jerusalem cricket Stenopelmatus navajo BLM

Niobrara ambersnail Oxyloma haydeni haydena BLM

Santa Rita Mountains chlorachoroan bug Chlorochroa rita BLM

Succineid snails All species in the family 

Succineidae

BLM

Plants

Agave sp. Agave delamateri AZNPL

Agave sp. Agave schottii var. treleasei AZNPL

Algodones Dunes sunflower Agave schottii var. treleasei CAE

Aquarius milkvetch Astragalus newberryi var. aquarii BLM

Aravaipa sage Savia amissa BLM

Aravaipa woodfern Thelypteris puberula var. 

sonorensis

BLM

Arizona leatherflower Clematis hirsutissima var. 

arizonica

AZNPL

Arizona Sonoran rosewood Vauquelinia californica ssp. 

sonorensis

BLM

Balloonvine Cardiospermum corundum BLM

Balsamroot sp. Balsamorhiza hookeri var.

hispidula

BLM

Bartram stonecrop Graptopetalum bartramii BLM

Beath milk-vetch Astragalus beathii BLM

Beaver dam surf pea Pediomelum castoreum BLM

Black rock daisy Townsendia smithii BLM

Blue sand lily Triteleiopsis palmeri BLM

California copperleaf Acalypha californica BLM

California flannelbush Fremontodendron californica BLM

Cerbat beardtongue Penstemon bicolor ssp. roseus BLM

Chiricahua Mountain tansy-aster Machaeranthera riparia BLM

Chisos Mountains coralroot Hexalectris revoluta BLM

Cliff milkvetch Astragalus cremnophylax var. 

myriorraphus

BLM
3-32 

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Clifton rock daisy Perityle ambrosiifolia BLM

ëCrestedí or ëFan-toppedí Saguaro Carnegiea gigantean AZNPL

Dallhouse spleenwort Asplenium (Ceterach) dalhousiae BLM

Desert cassia Senna armata BLM

Desert moonpod Selinocarpus diffuses BLM

Death Valley Mormon tea Ephedra funerea BLM

Diamond Butte milkvetch Astragalus toanus var. scidulus BLM

Encinillas Croton fruticulosus BLM

False grama Cathestecum erectum BLM

Fish Creek fleabane Erigeron piscaticus BLM

Fragrant bursera Bursera fagaroides AZNPL

Gentry indigo bush Dalea tentaculoides BLM, AZNPL

Giant sedge Carex spissa var. ulta BLM

Goosfoot moonpod Ammocodon chenopodioides BLM

Green puccoon Lithospermum viride BLM

Grand Canyon rose Rosa stellata var. abyssa BLM

Huachuca golden aster Heterotheca rutteri BLM

Huachuca groundsel Senecio huachucanus AZNPL

Kaibab pincushion cactus Pedicactus paradinei BLM

Kearney sumac Rhus kearneyi spp. kearneyi BLM

Kofa Mt. Barberry Berberis harrisoniana BLM

Longleaf sandpaper plant Petalonyx linearis BLM

Mohave thistle Cirsium mohavense BLM

Mt. Trumbell beardtongue Penstemon distans BLM

Murphey agave Agave murpheyi BLM, AZNPL

Nevin birdís-beak Cordylamthus nevinii BLM

Orange pipe cactus Stenocereus thurberi BLM

Owns Valley cotton thorn Tetradymia stenolepis BLM

Parish onion Allium parishii BLM

Parish alkali grass Puccinellia parishii AZNPL

Parish phacelia Phacelia parishii BLM

Peebles bluestar Amsonia peeblesii BLM

Purple-spike coralroot Hexalectris warnockii BLM, AZNPL

Pygmy sagebrush Artemisia pygmaea BLM

Redflower onion Allium rhizomatum BLM

Round-leaf broom Errazuriza rotundata BLM

Rumex sp. Rumex orthoneurus AZNPL

Sand food Pholisma sonorae BLM, AZNPL

Santa Cruz beehive cactus Coryphantha recurvata BLM, AZNPL

Santa Cruz striped agave Agave parviflora ssp. parviflora BLM, AZNPL

Santa Rita yellowshow Amoreuxia gonzalezii AZNPL

Scaly-stemmed sand plant Pholisma arenaria BLM, AZNPL

Scheerís strong-spined cory cactus Coryphantha scheeri AZNPL

Schott wire-lettuce Stephanomeria schottii BLM

Sheep Range beardtongue Penstemon petiolatus BLM

Shiny-leaved sandpaper plant Petalonyx nitidus BLM

Silver buffaloberry Shepherdia argentea BLM

Silver felt thorn Tetradymia argyraea BLM

Silverleaf sunray Enceliopsis argophylla BLM

Slender evening primrose Camissonia exilis BLM

Texas globeberry Ibervillea tenuisecta BLM

Three hearts Tricardia watsonii BLM

Three-nerved scurfpea Pediomelum trinervatum BLM

Tumamoc globeberry Tumamoca macdougalii BLM
3-33 

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Variegated beardtongue Penstemon discolor AZNPL

Waxy bitterbush Purshia glandulosa BLM

Whick fern Psilotum nudum AZNPL

White-margined penstemon Penstemon albomarginatus BLM

Yellow ladyís slipper Cypripedium calcelolus AZNPL 1

 Species already represented as federally listed, proposed, candidate, or Conservation Agreement/Management Plan species are not repeated 

here.

Status Definitions:

US Bureau of Land Management (2000 Animals, 2000 Plants; http://www.az.blm.gov)

BLM BLM Sensitive species

State Wildlife Species of Concern

AZSc Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (AGFD, Draft 1996; http://www.azgfd.com)

CAE California State Endangered

CAT California State Threatened

CASc California Species of Special Concern 

CAProt California Protected

Arizona Native Plant Law, Highly Safeguarded Species

AZNPL

The Arizona Department of Agriculture maintains a list of native plants that are protected under the State of Arizona Native Plant 

Law. The list includes five categories of protection as follows:

HS Highly Safeguarded ñ no collection allowed

SR Salvage Restricted ñ collection only with permit

ER Export Restricted ñ transport out of State prohibited

SA Salvage Restricted ñ permits required to remove live trees

HR Harvest Restricted ñ permits required to remove plant by-products

For the purposes of this Environmental Assessment, only species identified on the Highly Safeguarded list (HS) are included in the 

table above. These species of native plants and parts of plants, including the seeds and fruits, represent species believed to be in 

jeopardy of extinction within Arizona.

Table 3.8 ñ 

National Register Of Historic Places Listings On BLM-Managed Land In Arizona

County NRHP Property County NRHP Property

Cochise Lehner Mammoth Kill Site Pima Santa Ana del Chiquiburitac 

Mission Site

Cochise Santa Cruz de Terrenate Pinal McClellan Wash 

Archeological District

Graham Kearny Campsite and Trail Riverside County Blythe Intaglios

La Paz Eagletail Petroglyph Site Yavapai Perry Mesa Archeological 

District

La Paz Harquahala Mountain 

Smithsonian Solar 

Observatory Historic District

Yuma/La Paz Earth Figures of CaliforniaArizona

Maricopa Painted Rocks Yuma El Camino del Diablo

Mohave Antelope Cave Yuma Martinez Lake Site 

Mohave Bighorn Cave Yuma Ripley Intaglios

Pima Corcoraque Butte 

Archeological District

Yuma Sears Point Archeological 

District

Pima Empire Ranch 
3-34 

under this plan will be preceded by a complete 

review of known resources and field survey, as 

appropriate, to identify cultural resources that might 

be affected by the proposed activities.

3.3.1.1 Prehistoric Resources

Thousands of archeological sites representing over 

13,000 years of human occupation have been 

recorded on BLM-managed land in Arizona. 

Prehistoric sites tend to concentrate near seeps and 

springs in mountain ranges, and along perennial 

streams such as Burro and Big Sandy Creeks and the 

Gila and Colorado Rivers. They include properties as 

diverse as Paleoindian mammoth kill sites, Archaic 

hunting camps, giant ground figures (intaglios), 

pueblo ruins and rock art. A few of these sites have 

been developed for public access, such as the Murray 

Springs Clovis Site, a Paleoindian mammoth and 

bison kill site, as well as the Little Black Mountain 

Rock Art Site. 

3.3.1.2 Historic Resources

Historic resources in Arizona pertain primarily to 

Spanish, Mexican, and Anglo-American activities 

since the mid-1500s. They include ghost towns, 

historic ranches, and numerous historic trails and 

wagon roads such as the Butterfield Overland Stage 

Route. Some historic trails, such as the 1776 

Dominguez and Escalante Trail and the Juan Bautista 

de Anza National Historic Trail along the Gila River 

date to the period of Spanish/Mexican exploration. 

Resources pertaining to mining, timber cutting, and 

Anglo-American settlement date from the 1870ís, 

and numerous ìghost townsî (i .e., abandoned 

settlements) occur throughout the state. Many 

resources, such as the National Register-listed 

Empire Ranch (dating from 1876), the 1920s 

Harquahala Peak Smithsonian Observatory, the 1776 

Spanish Presidio Santa Cruz de Terrenate, the Gold 

King Mansion (1929), and the turn-of-the-century 

historic mining town of Swansea, are considered 

historically significant and are accessible to the 

public. Roads and structures constructed by the 

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) are also present. 

3.3.1.3 Places of Traditional Cultural 

Importance

Places of traditional cultural importance provide a 

sense of spiritual and social continuity to Native 

Americans and other cultural groups. Some places 

may have religious significance. Others may be used 

for the observance of traditional ceremonial 

activities, or for hunting or gathering plants for food 

or medicinal use.

Within the context of the NHPA, a traditional cultural 

property (TCP) is a property that may be eligible for 

inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places 

due to its association with the cultural practices or 

beliefs of a living community when those practices or 

beliefs have been passed down through the 

generations and are important in maintaining the 

cultural identity and integrity of that group. Because 

they are not usually recognizable to an outsider 

through archeological or historical investigations, the 

existence and locations of TCPs may often only be 

identified through consultation with members of the 

groups who ascribe value to those places.

The BLM is consulting specifically with Indian tribes 

to provide an opportunity for tribes to identify any 

places of traditional religious or cultural importance 

relevant to the proposed land use plan amendment. 

In addition, tribal consultation will also take place for 

individual fire management actions undertaken under 

the proposed LUP amendment, when applicable. 

Many Native American belief systems require that 

the identity and location of traditional religious and 

cultural properties not be divulged. BLM has a 

commitment to keep specific information regarding 

such resources confidential to the fullest extent 

allowed by law. 

3.3.2 Paleontological Resources

Paleontology is the study of flora and fauna 

(vertebrate and invertebrate) from past geological 

eras. Paleontological resources are fossils, or 

recognizable remains of past life, which have been 

preserved through various processes. The most 

typical process involves deposition of the organism in 

sediment which has either preserved the form of the 

organic material through replacement of the organic 

material by sediment, or through preservation of the 

form of the organism by impression in sediment. In 

some dry climates, preservation of organic material 

may occur.

Paleontological resources are discussed in somewhat 

more detail in the LUPs referenced at the beginning 

of Section 3.0, and are incorporated herein by 

reference. Significant fossil sites on BLM-managed 

land in Arizona include Bear Springs Badlands and 

the 111 Ranch, both located in Graham County and 

designated as ACECs due to the significance of their 

paleontological resources. Fossils on these lands date 

from the late Pliocene, approximately 2.5 million 

years ago, and contain representative remains of 

numerous land mammals now extinct in North 

America. A 25-mile long Pliocene lake near Wikieup 

also contains fossils of birds, horses, camels, and 
3-35 

other species. Mammoth remains have recently been 

found near Golden Shores, along the Colorado River.

Some prehistoric archeological sites, such as the 

Lehner Mammoth Kill Site and the Murray Springs 

Clovis Site, also contain paleontological resources 

indicating the exploitation of mammoth and bison by 

early human inhabitants of the area. 

BLM also manages land adjacent to the Petrified 

Forest National Park in Navaho County, which 

contains petrified wood and other fossils.

3.3.3 Visual Resources

Visual resources on BLM-administered lands are 

identified, evaluated, and classified following 

management guidelines in BLM Manual Section

8400, Information Bulletin No. 98-135, and 

Instruction Memorandum No. 98-164. Systematic 

inventory procedures are described in BLM 

Handbook H-8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory. 

Accordingly, Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

land classifications have been established in LUPs 

referenced in Section 3. The four VRM classes (IIV) are based on determinations of scenic quality or 

visual appeal of the area, distance zones from which 

the landscape of interest is viewed, and public 

sensitivities to change in the existing landscape 

character. Overall VRM quality is managed on the 

basis of the objectives for Classes I through IV 

described below:

Class I ñ The objective of this class is to preserve the 

existing character of the landscape. This class 

provides for natural ecological changes; it does not, 

however, preclude very limited management activity. 

The level of change to the characteristic landscape 

should be very low and must not attract attention.

Class II ñ The objective of this class is to retain the 

character of the landscape. The level of change to 

the characteristic landscape should be low. 

Management activities may be seen, but should not 

attract the attention of the casual observer. Any 

changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, 

color, and texture found in the predominant natural 

features of the characteristic landscape.

Class III ñ The objective of this class is to partially 

retain the existing character of the landscape. The 

level of activities may attract attention but should not 

dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes 

should repeat the basic elements found in the 

predominant natural features of the characteristic 

landscape.

Class IV ñ The objective of this class is to provide 

for management activities that require major

modification of the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape can be high. These management activities 

may dominate the view and be the major focus of 

viewer attention. Every attempt should be made, 

however, to minimize the impact of these activities 

through careful location, minimal disturbance, and 

repeating the basic elements.

Class I VRM areas, the most scenic and most 

sensitive of the four VRM classes, are typically 

special designation management areas such as 

wilderness or Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACECs). Management in these areas is 

generally consistent with VRM objectives. Class II 

areas may include special designation areas not 

managed as Class I areas and, in addition, include 

canyon and mountain vistas of particular interest. 

Class III VRM management areas are established 

along some major highway corridors or may have 

been established adjacent to higher level VRM 

classes to buffer management impacts near more 

sensitive areas or broad vistas. Class IV areas are 

those lands not included in Classes I-III. 

Management activities in all of these areas are 

assessed on a project-by-project basis through a 

process described in BLM Handbook H-8431-1, 

Visual Resource Contrast Rating, to assure that 

impacts to visual quality are minimized or mitigated. 

Potential impacts, analyzed for the basic elements of 

form, line, texture, and color, can be managed 

through the application of various design techniques.

3.3.4 Special Designation Areas

Special designation or Special Management Areas 

are lands that contain natural features that have been 

recognized by law, Presidential Proclamation, or 

have been recognized in prior plans or reports as 

being unique, important and deserving of some form 

of special management. There are five types of such 

special designation areas on BLM-managed lands in 

Arizona: wilderness areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, 

and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs). Special designation areas are discussed in 

more detail in the LUPs referenced at the beginning 

of Section 3.0, and are incorporated herein by 

reference. The following are brief descriptions of 

special designation areas. 
3-36 

Table 3.9 ñ Wilderness Areas and Acreage Amount per BLM Field Office

Phoenix Field Office Kingman Field Office

Big Horn Mountains Wilderness 21,000 ac Arrastra Mountain Wilderness 129,800 ac 

Harquahala Mountains 

Wilderness

22,880 ac Aubrey Peak Wilderness* 15,400 ac 

Hassayampa River Canyon 

Wilderness*

11,840 ac Mount Nutt Wilderness* 27,600 ac 

Hells Canyon Wilderness* 9,900 ac Mount Tipton Wilderness* 30,760 ac 

Hummingbird Springs 

Wilderness

31,200 ac Mount Wilson Wilderness* 23,900 ac 

North Maricopa Mountains 

Wilderness*

63,200 ac Tres Alamos Wilderness* 8,300 ac

Sierra Estrella Wilderness* 14,400 ac Upper Burro Creek Wilderness 27,440 ac

Signal Mountain Wilderness* 13,350 ac Wabayuma Peak Wilderness* 40,000 ac

South Maricopa Mountains 

Wilderness*

60,100 ac Warm Springs Wilderness* 112,400 ac

Table Top Wilderness* 34,400 ac Safford Field Office

Woolsey Peak Wilderness* 64,000 ac Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness* 19,410 ac

Lake Havasu Field Office Baker Canyon Wilderness Study Area 4,810 ac

Cactus Plain Wilderness Study 

Area

59,100 ac Dos Cabezas Mountains Wilderness* 11,700 ac

East Cactus Plain Wilderness* 14,630 ac Fishhooks Wilderness 1,500 ac

Gibraltar Mountain Wilderness* 18,790 ac North Santa Teresa Wilderness 5,800 ac 

Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness 25,050 ac Peloncillo Mountains Wilderness* 19,400 ac 

Rawhide Mountains Wilderness 38,470 ac Redfield Canyon Wilderness* 6,600 ac

Swansea Wilderness 16,400 ac Yuma Field Office

Arizona Strip Field Office Eagletail Mountains Wilderness* 100,600 ac

Beaver DamWilderness* 19,600 ac Muggins Mountains Wilderness* 7,711 ac

Cottonwood Point Wilderness* 6,860 ac New Water Mountains Wilderness* 24,600 ac

Grand Wash Cliffs Wilderness* 37,030 ac Trigo Mountains Wilderness 30,300 ac

Kanab Creek Wilderness* 75,300 ac Tucson Field Office

Mount Logan Wilderness* 14,650 ac Baboquivari Peak Wilderness 2,065 ac

Mount Trumbull Wilderness* 7,880 ac Coyote Mountains Wilderness 5,080 ac

PaiuteWilderness* 87,900 ac Needleís Eye Wilderness 8,760 ac

Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs 

Wilderness*

112,500 ac White Canyon Wilderness 5,800 ac

* A Wilderness Management Plan has been approved for this area.

3.3.4.1 Wilderness

The BLM in Arizona is responsible for 49 wilderness 

areas totaling over 1.5 million acres. Congress 

established these areas through the Arizona

Wilderness Act of 1984 and the Arizona Desert 

Wilderness Act of 1990. Table 3.9 list wilderness 

areas by the Field Office that manages each area.

3.3.4.2 Wild & Scenic Rivers

The Verde River in central Arizona is a designated 

Wild and Scenic River, which is characterized by a 

rich riparian area. Indeed, Verde is the Spanish term 

for the color ìgreen.î Many people visit the Verde 

for its outstanding recreational opportunities 

including boating, hunting, fishing, birding, hiking, 

picnicking and photography. The Verde River heads 

at Sullivan Lake in the Big Chino Valley (south of 

Paulden) in Yavapai County, and flows generally 

south for 170 miles through private, state, tribal and 

National Forest System lands to the confluence with 

the Salt River. 
3-37 

3.3.4.3 National Monuments

BLM manages five National Monuments within the 

State of Arizona. These five monuments are:

Agua Fria National Monument - Adjacent to rapidly 

expanding communities, the 71,000-acre monument 

is approximately 40 miles north of central Phoenix. 

The monument encompasses two mesas and the 

canyon of the Agua Fria River. Elevations range 

from 2,150 feet above sea level along the Agua Fria 

Canyon to about 4,600 feet in the northern hills. This 

expansive mosaic of semi-desert area, cut by ribbons 

of valuable riparian forest, offers one of the most 

significant systems of prehistoric sites in the 

American Southwest. In addition to the rich record 

of human history, the monument contains outstanding 

biological resources. This monument is managed by 

the BLM Phoenix Field Office.

Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument ñ

Situated on the Colorado Plateau in northwestern 

Arizona within the Colorado River drainage, the 

Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument 

borders the Grand Canyon National Park to the south 

and the state of Nevada to the west, encompassing a 

portion of Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The 

Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument is 

under joint management of the BLM Arizona Strip 

Field Office and the NPS. Covering 1,054,264 acres 

of remote and unspoiled public lands, this monument 

is a scientific treasure, containing many of the same 

values that have long been protected in the Grand 

Canyon National Park. Deep canyons, mountains and 

lonely buttes testify to the power of geological forces 

and provide colorful vistas. Here Paleozoic and 

Mesozoic sedimentary rock layers are relatively 

undeformed and unobscured by vegetation, offering a 

clear view to understanding the geologic history of 

the Colorado Plateau. The monument encompasses 

the lower portion of the Shivwits Plateau, an 

important watershed for the Colorado River and the 

Grand Canyon. Beyond the phenomenal geological 

resources, the monument also contains countless 

biological and historical values

Ironwood Forest National Monument ñ The 

Ironwood Forest National Monument is located 25 

miles northwest of Tucson, and about one hour by 

highway south of Phoenix. This 129,000-acre 

national monument contains a significant system of 

cultural and historical sites covering a 5,000 year 

period. Possessing one of the richest stands of 

Ironwood trees in the Sonoran Desert, the monument 

also encompasses several desert mountain ranges 

including the Silver Bell, Waterman and Sawtooth, 

with desert valleys in between. Elevation ranges from 

1,800 to 4,261 feet. Three areas within the 

monument, the Los Robles Archeological District, 

the Mission of Santa Ana del Chiquiburitac and the 

Cocoraque Butte Archeological District are listed on 

the National Register of Historic Places. This 

monument is managed by the BLM Tucson Field 

Office.

Sonoran Desert National Monument ñ This 

monument is located approximately 60 miles 

southwest of the Phoenix metropolitan area, 

straddling U.S. Interstate 8. The outer boundaries 

encompass approximately 496,337 acres. The

monument contains magnificent examples of 

untrammeled Sonoran Desert landscape. The 

Sonoran Desert is the most biologically diverse of the 

North American deserts, and the monument captures 

a significant portion of that diversity. The most 

striking aspect of the plant community within the 

monument is the extensive saguaro cactus forest. 

The monument contains three distinct mountain 

ranges, the Maricopa, Sand Tank and Table Top 

Mountains, as well as the Booth and White Hills, all 

separated by wide valleys. The monument also 

contains three congressionally designated wilderness 

areas and many significant archeological and historic 

sites, and remnants of several important historic 

trails. This monument is managed by the BLM 

Phoenix Field Office.

Vermilion Cliffs National Monument ñ This remote 

and unspoiled 294,000-acre monument is a geologic 

treasure, containing the Paria Plateau, Vermilion 

Cliffs, Coyote Buttes, and Paria Canyon. Elevations 

range from 3,100 to 6,500 feet. It is located in north 

central Arizona bordering the State of Utah on the 

north, and the Colorado River to the east. This 

monument is managed by the BLM Arizona Strip 

Field Office. 

3.3.4.4 National Conservation Areas

BLM manages three national conservation areas. 

These include the following sites:

Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area ñ On 

November 28, 1990, Congress created the Gila Box 

Riparian National Conservation Area (RNCA) in 

section 201 of the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act, 

Public Law 101-628. As stated in the Act, the 

principle objective for establishing the RNCA was to 

ìconserve, protect, and enhanceî the riparian and 

associated values of the area. Four perennial 

waterwaysñthe Gila River, Bonita Creek, Eagle 

Creek, and San Francisco Riverñare the lifeblood of 

this remarkable place. Not only does the RNCA hold 

one of the most significant riparian zones in the 
3-38 

Southwest, it offers tremendous scientific, cultural, 

scenic, recreational, and other associated values. It is 

one of only two Riparian National Conservation

Areas in the Nation.

A 15-mile segment of Bonita Creek and 23 miles of 

the Gila River have been included in this special 

natural area designated by Congress. Bonita Creek, 

popular for birding and picnicking, is lined with large 

cottonwoods, sycamores, and willows. Cliff 

dwellings, historic homesteads, Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep, and over 200 species of birds make 

this cool year-round desert oasis worth the short drive 

from Safford. The Gila River section, known as the 

Gila Box, is comprised of patchy mesquite 

woodlands, mature cottonwood trees, sandy beaches, 

and grand buff colored cliffs.

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area ñ President 

Clinton signed a bill creating the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area (NCA) and Acquisition 

Planning District in southeastern Arizona on 

December 6, 2000. The designation was the result of 

Congressí passage of H.R. 2941 (Congressman Jim 

Kolbe). The new 42,000-acre NCA consists entirely 

of public lands managed by the BLMís Tucson Field 

Office. The NCA is bordered on the north and east by 

lands within the Acquisition Planning District.

These lands are located about 50 miles southeast of 

Tucson. Combined, the NCA and Acquisition 

Planning District total 142,800 acres of public, 

private, county, and state trust lands. They form a 

scenic landscape of vast desert grasslands and rolling 

oak-studded hills connecting several ìsky islandî 

mountain ranges. Cienega Creek, with its perennial 

flow and lush riparian corridor, forms the lifeblood of 

the NCA. The area is home to a great diversity of 

plant and animal life, including several threatened or 

endangered species. Protection of this regionally 

significant open space safeguards a network 

extending south of Interstate 10 to protected lands in 

northern Sonora, Mexico. The BLM Tucson Field 

Office manages the NCA, which includes the 

Empire-Cienega Resource Conservation Area. Lands 

within the Acquisition Planning District are owned 

and managed by Pima County, National Audubon 

Society, the State of Arizona, and numerous private

landowners.

San Pedro National Conservation Area ñ The San 

Pedro riparian area, containing about 40 miles of the 

upper San Pedro River, was designated by Congress 

as a National Conservation Area (NCA) on 

November 18, 1988. The primary purpose for the 

designation is to protect and enhance the desert 

riparian ecosystem, a rare remnant of what was once 

an extensive network of similar riparian systems 

throughout the Southwest. 

The word riparian refers to an area where plants and 

animals thrive because of an availability of water, 

either at or near the soil surface. Riparian areas are 

the shores of lakes and reservoirs, the banks and 

floodplains of intermittent or perennial (year- round) 

streams, rivers and springs. Managed by the Tucson 

Field Office, the San Pedro Riparian NCA contains 

over 58,000 acres of public land in Cochise County, 

Arizona, between the international border (United 

States and Mexico) and St. David, Arizona.

3.3.4.5 Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACECs)

BLM manages 50 Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) in Arizona encompassing some 

638,110 acres of public lands (see Table 3.10). 

ACEC designations highlight areas where special 

management attention is needed to protect, and 

prevent irreparable damage to, important historic, 

cultural, or scenic values; fish or wildlife resources; 

or other natural systems or processes. ACECs may 

also be designated to protect human life and safety 

from natural hazards. The ACEC designation 

indicates that the BLM recognizes that an area has 

significant values and has established special 

management measures to protect those values. For 

more information on the designation of ACECs, see 

BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern. 

3.3.4.6 The Arizona Trail

The Arizona Trail will eventually be a 790-mile nonmotorized trail that traverses Arizona from the 

borders with Mexico and Utah. The Arizona Trail is 

intended to be a primitive, long distance trail that 

highlights the State's topographic, biologic, historic, 

and cultural diversity. The primary users are hikers, 

equestrians, and mountain bicyclists (outside of 

wilderness or other specially managed areas). 

Opportunities will also exist for cross-country skiers, 

snowshoers, joggers, and packstock users. More than 

600 miles of the Arizona Trail have been officially 

designated and signed. In 1993, an Intergovernmental 

Agreement was established between Arizona State 

Parks, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, 

and the BLM (known as the Arizona Trail Partners) 

that allows these agencies to cooperatively plan for 

the development and completion of the Arizona Trail. 

An estimated 8 percent of the trail is on BLMadministered public lands. 
3-39

Table 3.10 ñ Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in Arizona

ACEC Name Size (Acres) Reason for Designation Field Office

Virgin River Corridor 8,100 Fish, Riparian, Scenic Arizona Strip

Beaver Dam Slope 51,400 Wildlife, Desert Tortoise Arizona Strip

Little Black Mountain 200 Cultural Resources Arizona Strip

Fort Pierce 900 Botanical, Watershed Arizona Strip

Lost Spring Mountain 9,800 Cultural Resources, Botanical Arizona Strip

Moonshine Ridge 5,500 Cultural Resources, Botanical Arizona Strip

Witch Pool 260 Cultural Resources Arizona Strip

Nampaweap 550 Cultural Resources Arizona Strip

Marble Canyon 10,700 Botanical Arizona Strip

Johnson Spring 2,400 Cultural Resources, Botanical Arizona Strip

Virgin Slope 41,410 Desert Tortoise Mojave Desert EA

Pakoon 76,350 Desert Tortoise Mojave Desert EA

Perry Mesa 9,440 Cultural Resources Phoenix

Coffee Pot Botanical 9,600 Botanical Lower Gila South

Vekol Valley Grasslands 3,520 Botanical Lower Gila South

Larry Canyon 80 Riparian, Botanical Phoenix

Joshua Tree Forest/Grand Wash Cliffs 39,060 Vegetation, Scenic, Cultural Resources Kingman

Black Mtns. Ecosystem Mgmt. 114,242 Bighorn Sheep Habitat, Plants, Scenic, Cultural Resources Kingman

Wright-Cottonwood Creek Riparian & Cultural 27,285 Riparian, Cultural Resources Kingman

Hualapai Mtn. RNA 3,303 Vole Habitat, Riparian Kingman

White-Margined Penstemon Reserve 17,489 White-Margined Penstemon Habitat Kingman

Carrow-Stephens Ranches 542 Historic, Paleontological Kingman

McCracken Desert Tortoise Habitat 21,740 Desert Tortoise Habitat, Scenic Kingman

Poachie Desert Tortoise Habitat 32,752 Desert Tortoise Habitat, Scenic Kingman

Aubrey Peak Bighorn Sheep Habitat 3,460 Bighorn Sheep Habitat, Scenic Kingman

Burro Creek Riparian & Cultural 22,682 Riparian, Cultural Resources, T&E, Bald Eagle Habitat Kingman

Clay Hills RNA 1,114 Arizona Cliffrose Habitat Kingman
3-40

ACEC Name Size (Acres) Reason for Designation Field Office

Three Rivers Riparian 32,043 Riparian, T&E, Bald Eagle Habitat Kingman

Tanner Wash 950 Botanical Phoenix

Table Mountain RNA 1,220 RNA, Botanical Safford

Turkey Creek Riparian 2,326 Riparian Safford

Bear Springs Badlands 2,927 Paleontological, Scenic Safford

Swamp Springs/Hot Springs 10,838 Riparian, T&E Species, Cultural Resources Safford

111 Ranch RNA 2,688 RNA, Paleontological Safford

Bowie Mountain 4,190 Scenic Safford

Guadalupe Canyon ONA 2,159 ONA, Riparian, Botanical Safford

Willcox Playa NNL 2,475 Botanical, National Natural Landmark Safford

Dos Cabezas Peaks 25 Scenic, Cultural Resources Safford

Eagle Creek Bat Cave 40 Critical Bat Maternity Cave Safford

Desert Grasslands RNA 530 Relict Desert Grasslands Safford

Gila River Cultural Area 1,150 Cultural Resources Lower Gila South

Big Marias 5,280 Cultural Resources, Botanical Yuma

St. David Cienega RNA 350 RNA, Botanical Safford

San Rafael RNA 370 RNA,, Botanical, Riparian Safford

San Pedro River RNA 1,340 RNA, Botanical, Riparian Safford

Appleton Whittell RNA 3,141 RNA, Botanical Phoenix

Waterman Mountains 1,960 Botanical Phoenix

White Canyon 300 Scenic, Wildlife, Cultural Resources Phoenix

Baboquivari Peak 2,070 Scenic, Wildlife, Botanical, Cultural Resources Tucson

Empire-Cienega 45,859 Riparian, T&E Species, Wildlife, Cultural Tucson

Common Abbreviations: ONA = Outstanding Natural Area; RNA = Research Natural Area; NNL = National Natural Landmark
3-41

3.3.5 Land Uses 

The BLM administers 11.6 million surface acres of

public lands, along with another 17.5 million

subsurface acres within Arizona (Arizona BLM

2003). The land use planning process adapted by

BLM allows the public to be involved from the very

beginning. Uses of these public lands are diverse and 

include livestock grazing, recreation, and forestry.

The Arizona BLM also issues leases, rights-of-way 

and a wide variety of use permits, including parks,

power transmission lines and roads. BLM offices in

Arizona are currently processing right-of-way 

applications for fiber optic projects which cross

public land in Arizona. Additionally, BLM

administers both mining claim records and mineral

leases, which are on lands managed by other federal

agencies.

3.3.5.1 Grazing Management

Livestock grazing is permitted on nearly 12 million 

acres of public lands in Arizona. Approximately 847 

livestock operators graze more than 56,000 cattle and 

2,000 sheep on more than 800 grazing allotments 

(Arizona BLM 2003). Livestock grazing on BLM 

rangeland is administered through the Taylor Grazing 

Act of 1934, which called for grazing management 

through the use of permits. Livestock grazing is an 

important use of BLM-administered rangeland in 

Arizona. Livestock grazing is sometimes managed 

through allotment management plans referenced in 

exiting LUPs. Grazing management practices adhere 

to the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Administration (BLM 1997). 

The goals of grazing management are to maintain 

and, where necessary, improve rangeland health. 

BLM is initiating the ìSustaining Working 

Landscapeî concept, to improve rangeland health 

through changes to rangeland grazing policy based on 

partnerships with ranchers. 

3.3.5.2 Recreation

Arizona BLM rangelands are a popular destination 

for recreationists that are drawn to open spaces, 

diverse landscapes, and freedom from the restrictions 

of urban areas (Arizona BLM 2003). There are a 

wide variety of high quality outdoor recreational 

opportunities on BLM rangeland including camping, 

hiking, off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel, bird 

watching, wildlife viewing, photography, mountain 

biking, hunting, nature study, mining/prospecting, 

and horseback riding. BLM provides approximately 

50 established trails for hiking and 15 trails/by ways 

set aside for OHV travel. The San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area is internationally 

renowned for birdwatching. Hundreds of 

birdwatchers annually visit the area to observe over 

250 migratory and wintering birds. There are 

approximately 15 areas set aside by BLM to observe 

wildlife including Bonita Creek, Muleshoe Ranch, 

and the Painted Rock Petroglyph Site. 

3.3.5.3 Forestry

Forested lands include ponderosa pine forests, pinyon 

and juniper woodlands, and mixed conifer and 

deciduous woodlands (Arizona BLM 2003). Forest 

products include mainly firewood and fence posts. 

The collection of firewood and fence posts can lead 

to human-caused wildfire if permittees are not 

careful. Sparks from chain saws and parking vehicles 

over dried vegetation are ways to inadvertently start 

wildfires. To alleviate these problems, spark 

arrestors are required on chain saws and vehicles 

must not park over dried vegetation. 

3.3.5.4 Minerals

The Arizona BLM administers approximately 17.5 

million subsurface acres, and supervises about 72,900 

acres of Indian and mineral leases in Arizona 

(Arizona BLM 2003). The minerals program 

includes locatable, leasable and salable minerals. In 

locatable minerals, there are 24,135 active mining 

claims, which are recorded on Arizonaís public lands. 

Mining claim activity includes exploration and 

development of gold, silver, copper and other hard 

rock minerals. Arizonaís public lands also provide a 

good source for salable minerals, such as sand, 

gravel, stone and clay. Oil and gas leases fall under 

the leasable minerals program. Approximately 100 

separate oil and gas leases are located on 160,000 

acres in Arizona. The only oil and gas production in 

Arizona comes from leases located on the Navajo 

Indian Reservation. There are approximately 11 

leases, containing 49 producing wells on 42,550 

reservation acres. The BLM New Mexico Farmington 

District manages these producing leases. The BLM 

also manages the Indian mineral leasing program. 

The major minerals leased on Indian land in Arizona 

are coal, copper, sand and gravel. Currently, there are 

15 Indian leases under BLMís supervision. 

3.3.6 Socio-economic Conditions 

The economy of Arizona is highly diversified, and 

the state is home to a culturally rich population. 

During the 2000 census, residents of Arizona 

reported their ethnic heritage to be: 76% white, 25% 

white of Hispanic or Latino origin, 5% American 

Indian and Alaska native, 4% Black or African 

American, 2% Asian, 0.1% Native Hawaiian and 
3-42

Other Pacific Islander, with 12% reporting some 

other race and 3% reporting two or more races.

Between 1970 and 2000, the stateís population grew 

by 3.6% per year, compared to the U.S. annual 

growth rate of 1.1% over the same time period. 

Between 1990 and 2000, the state of Arizona 

experienced a 40% increase in population. Pinal, 

Yavapai, and Mohave Counties experienced 

population increases of 54.4, 55.5, and 65.8%, 

respectively. Greenlee and Apache Counties grew 

much slower with a growth rate of 6.7 and 12.7%, 

respectively. In 2000, 88.2% of Arizona residents 

live within urban areas, while 11.8% live in rural 

areas. In Mohave, Yuma, Pima, and Maricopa 

Counties, 75.3, 86.9, 91.6, and 97.1% of the 

population lives in urban areas. Apache County has 

the lowest portion of residents living in urban areas at 

24%. The number of residents living in urban areas 

has steadily increased, from 79.6% of the stateís 

population in 1970 to over 88% in 2000.

In 2001, Yuma County had the highest 

unemployment rate at 24.4%, followed by Santa 

Cruz, Apache and Navajo counties at 13%, 12%, and 

11%, respectively. Yavapai County had the lowest 

unemployment rate at 2.9%, followed by Pima and 

Maricopa Counties at 3.5% and 3.9%, respectively. 

Between 1990 and 2000, employment in all 

industries grew by 629,000 workers. The percentage 

of total employment has increased in the service 

industries (finance, insurance, real estate, 

entertainment, recreation, education and other 

services) from about 42% of all workers to about 

51% of all workers. Industries that have decreased as 

a percentage of total employment include 

manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, 

agriculture, forestry, and mining. The importance of 

federal rangelands to livestock production can be 

measured by rancher dependency on federal forage. 

Average dependency of permittees on federal forage 

is highest in Arizona compared to other western 

states with BLM-administered public lands (U.S. 

Census Bureau). 

In 2002, a total of 88,458 wildland fires were 

reported nationwide. These fires burned some 6.9 

million acres, burned 815 structures, and cost an 

estimated $1.6 billion in fire suppression (Federal 

agencies only). This was an increase from the 2001 

fire season, which saw 84,079 wildland fires that 

burned about 3.6 million acres and 731 structures, 

and cost approximately $542 million for fire 

suppression. In 2000, there were 122,827 wildland 

fires that burned 8.4 million acres, burned 861 

structures, and cost $1.3 billion for Fire Suppression. 

Over 200 wildfires occur annually on BLMadministered lands within Arizona, with the recent 

ten year average of 235 wildland fires for 24,241 

acres burned per year. Between 1998 - 2000, 

Arizona BLM responded to an average of 704 fires 

per year which burned approximately 148,35 acres. 

The cause of the wildland fires varies from year to 

year. From 1998 to 2000 67% of the fires were 

caused by humans, accounting for 75% of the acres 

burned. This has increased from the previous five 

years (1993-1997) in which only 42% of the fires 

were human caused accounting for 25% of the acres 

burned (NIFC). 

The economic cost of suppressing large, catastrophic 

wildland fires varies wildely. All wildland fires start 

small and initial or extended attack operations usually 

put them out. When the initial attack will not stop the 

fire, another level of firefighting response is 

activatedó the Incident Management Team (IMT). 

Headed by an experienced Incident Commander (IC), 

an IMT may manage over 2,000 people and hundreds 

of pieces of equipment on a large wildland fire. The 

costs for these fires can run millions of dollars. A 

2002 study from the National Academy of Public 

Administration3

 on Wildfire suppression costs 

studied six fires, and found that suppression costs 

ranged from $26 per acre at the 83,673-acre Sheep 

fire to $2,975 per acre at the 4,470-acre Green Knoll 

fire. 

The costs of fuels treatment can also vary widely. A 

June 2000 survey from the U.S. Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station, found few sources of data 

on the per-acre costs of prescribed burns. The total 

cost of prescribed burning includes components 

incurred during planning and layout, fire-line 

construction and burn preparation, ignition, and mopup. Fixed costs include burn plan preparation, NEPA 

analysis and public involvement, compliance with 

other laws, smoke management precautions, postfire 

evaluation, and general overhead. Per-acre planning 

costs can vary depending on operational efficiency 

and unit size. Project costs include firebreak 

construction, igniting and conducting the bum, 

mopping up, postfire monitoring, and contractor 

costs. Costs may differ from unit to unit because of 

differences in topography, weather conditions, and 

other factors. Different burning objectives also cause 

variations in planning, personnel and equipment 

needs, and the precautions that are necessary. Overall 

cost will reflect differences in timber types and fuels 

treated, safety precautions, the objectives of the bum 

 

3 Fairbanks, Frank A, November 2002. Wildfire 

Supression: Strategies for Containing Costs, National 

Academy of Public Administration. 
3-43

program, overall efficiency, and cost-collection 

methods.

Unit size is one of the most important factors in peracre costs: larger burns have smaller per acre costs. 

Costs also vary with the shape and configuration of 

the treatment area, especially in slashreduction/sitepreparation burns. Irregularly shaped units are more 

difficult to burn and monitor than more geometric tits 

of the same size. Small and irregularly shaped units 

usually cost more to treat, although they may be more 

environmentally and aesthetically desirable. The 

survey found reported a U.S. Forest Service-wide 

mean cost of $78.13 per acre, but ranged from $22.80 

per acre in Region 8 to $223.38 per acre in Region 5. 

The Arizona BLM reports the mean cost of 

prescribed fire to be $22.58 per acre; the cost of 

chemical treatments to be $80.00 per acre; and the 

cost of mechanical treatment to be $179.00 per acre. 

Table 3.11 details the average annual number of 

wildland fires on BLM lands in Arizona. 

Table 3.11 ñAverage Annual Number of Wildland Fires on BLM-Administered Lands in Arizona

Year 

(annual 

average)

Human

Caused Fires 

(HCF)

Acres 

Burned by 

HCF

Lightning 

Caused Fires 

(LCF)

Acres Burned 

by LCF

Percent of 

Fires Human 

Caused

Percent of 

Acres Burned 

by HCF

1983-

1987 73 3,453 67 8,429 51% 31%

1988-

1992 87 3,160 91 3,747 50% 41%

1993-

1997 104 7,228 147 23,969 42% 25%

1998-

2002 108 7,685 121 8,451 48% 54%

The social and economic impacts from wildland fires 

in Arizona can be measured by estimated property 

losses from wildland fires, fire suppression costs, and 

watershed restoration costs. Economic impacts arise 

both directly from fire damage and indirectly from 

changes in local economic activity, such as a drop in 

tourism. Both direct and indirect effects of wildfires 

have exacted a heavy economic toll on many 

communities. In addition to these types of direct, outof-pocket impacts on communities and government 

agencies, it is likely that losses in resource values 

will total many millions of dollars. The 

consequences of recent wildfires on Arizonaís natural 

resources are as vast as they are varied. Wildland 

fires burned both public and private lands over a 

broad spectrum of rangeland and forested 

ecosystems, often encompassing entire watersheds 

critical to community water supplies. Compared to 

historic fire events, recent fires have burned with 

such intensity that the ecosystems of many of these 

extensively burned areas have been drastically 

changed. Without intervention, these burned lands 

will recover slowly and be susceptible to undesirable 

changes in vegetation composition. For example, 

plant species such as cheatgrass often become 

established in burned areas, creating additional fire 

risks and disrupting natural systems. The cost to 

eradicate unwanted invasive species such as 

cheatgrass, although unquantified, is very large. It is 

also difficult to quantify the costs or benefits of 

wildland fires in terms of lands, lives, and other 

values lost or saved from the fire. Resource benefits 

can include restoring the health of natural 

ecosystems, enabling native species to thrive, and 

preserving the many natural and cultural resources 

located on Federal lands.

3.3.7 Environmental Justice

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 

12898 (ìEnvironmental Justiceî) require Federal 

agencies to identify and address ìdisproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations.î 

ìEnvironmental justiceî means ensuring that low -

income populations and minority populations are not 

exposed to disproportionately high or adverse 

environmental impact. In December 1997 the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued 

guidance on environmental justice. In addition, 

Executive Order 13045 (ìProtection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risksî) requires that actions 

be evaluated to identify and assess environmental 
3-44

health risks and safety risks that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

As discussed previously in this section, Arizona is 

home to a culturally rich population, including many

minority populations. In accordance with CEQ 

Environmental Justice Guidelines, minority 

populations should be identified when 1) the minority 

population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent; or 

2) the minority population of the affected area is 

meaningfully greater than the minority population 

percentage in the general population or other 

appropriate use of geographic analysis. Although the 

population of Hispanics, Latinos, or American 

Indians does not exceed 50 percent, their population 

in portions of the analysis area is ìmeaningfully 

greaterî than the minority population in the general 

population (State of Arizona). Therefore, for the 

purposes of screening for environmental justice 

concerns, a minority population exists within the 

planning area. 

The portion of Arizona residents living below the 

poverty level was 13.9% in 1999 (latest data 

available), compared to the U.S. average of 12.4%. 

Several counties had large portions of their residents 

living below the poverty level: Apache County 

(37.8%), Navajo County (29.5%), Santa Cruz County 

(24.5%), Graham County (23.0%), La Paz County 

(19.6%), Yuma County (19.2%), and Cochino 

County (18.2%; U.S. Census Bureau). 
4-1 

Section 4.0 Environmental Consequences

The resources discussed in this section were 

identified as the resources potentially affected by the 

Proposed Action, and include applicable ìCritical 

Elementsî of the human environment whose review 

is mandated by Executive Order, regulation or policy. 

Each of these resources has been reviewed for the 

Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. The 

following resource values were not present, not 

affected, or not identified as a resource of concern 

during scooping: hazardous/solid wastes, 

prime/unique farmlands, and floodplains.

The analysis includes direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts. Direct effects are caused by the action and 

occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are 

caused by the action and are later in time or farther 

removed in distance, but are still reasonably 

foreseeable. Cumulative effects are impacts that 

result from the incremental impact of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 

other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions 

taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). 

The cumulative impact analysis included the 

anticipated effect of the Proposed Action and the 

anticipated actions of other agencies as determined 

through a review of public documents, information 

gained from public meetings, and coordination with 

multiple agencies.

4.1 Air Resources

Fire management activities could affect air quality 

through smoke emissions from wildfires, prescribed 

burn, exhaust from machinery used in site 

preparation, fire control, monitoring, and thinning 

activities. Smoke from wildfires and prescribed fire 

is a complex mixture of carbon, tars, liquids, and 

gases. The major pollutants are particulate matter 

(PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC). Nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) are also produced in relatively small quantity 

compared to the other pollutants. Sulfur oxides 

(SOx) compounds are produced in negligible 

quantities due to low elemental sulfur content of 

forest fuel. SOx, is not identified as a problem in 

prescribed burning and therefore not included in the 

analysis. The most effective method of controlling 

wildfire emissions is to prevent the occurrence of 

wildfires. Prescribed burning is one of the most 

frequently used techniques as a preventive measure 

for reducing wildfire occurrence. Although some air 

pollution is generated, the net amount of air pollution 

is a relatively smaller quantity than that produced by 

wildfires. 

To quantify smoke emissions that would result from 

each of the alternatives in each of the planning areas, 

the First Order Fire Effect Model version 5 (FOFEM) 

was utilized. FOFEM is a computer-based planning 

tool that provides quantitative predictions for 

planning prescribed fire, for impact assessment, and 

for long-range planning and policy development. 

FOFEM is designed to provide quantitative fire 

effects information for tree mortality, fuel 

consumption, soil heating, and smoke. FOFEM was 

utilized to generate emission factors for PM10, PM2.5, 

CO, carbon dioxide (CO2), and VOC (as CH4). 

FOFEM does not provide emission factor for NOx. 

NOx factor was estimated using AP-42, EPA 

Compilation of Emission Factors. AP-42 estimates 

NOx emission factor from wildfires and prescribed 

fires to be approximately 35 times less than those for 

CO. Therefore, the CO emission factor generated by 

FOFEM was scaled down proportionally to produce 

NOx emission factor. 

The vegetation zones defined within the planning 

areas based on the Ecological Aggregation of GAP 

Vegetation data set (Table 3.4) were correlated with 

the Society of American Foresters (SAF)/Society for 

Range Management (SRM) cover types available 

within FOFEM. Defaults within FOFEM were used. 

In some cases, direct correlation between cover types 

was not possible, and a surrogate SAF/SRM cover 

type was selected. Some areas include bare rock or 

water for which no emissions are expected. The 

SAF/SRM and FOFEM cross-referenced vegetation 

cover types used in the air quality analysis are 

provided in Table 4.1. 

The variations in vegetation cover types and 

associated fuel loads from one planning area to 

another and in some cases within one planning area 

warrant separate FOFEM runs for each area. The 

emission factors generated, using FOFEM along with 

appropriate fuel loading conditions for each 

vegetation type, are segregated by areas and provided 

in Table 4.2. 
4-2 

Table 4.1 ñ Vegetation Cover Types Used in Air Quality Emissions Analysis

GAP Vegetation Type Plant Growth Form SAF/SRM Type Comments

Lower Sonoran Desert 

Scrub

Shrub-microphyllous SRM 729, 506, 414, 211 FOFEM default used 

under typical condition 

Upper Sonoran Desert 

Scrub

Shrub-microphyllous SRM 507, 506 FOFEM default used 

under typical condition 

Great Basin Conifer 

Woodland

Tree-conifer SAF 238, 220 and SRM 

412, 107 

FOFEM default used 

under typical condition 

Mojave Desert Scrub Scrub-microphyllous SRM 506, 501, 414, 211 FOFEM default used 

under typical condition 

Great Basin Desert 

Scrub

Shrub SRM 405, 401, 320, 314, 

107 

FOFEM default used 

under typical condition 

Plains and Great Basin 

Grasslands

Grass SRM 712, 709, 708, 705, 

612, 611, 502, 310, 301

FOFEM default used 

under typical condition 

Semidesert Grassland Grass SRM 707, 703, 505 FOFEM default used 

under typical condition 

Interior Chaparral Schrub-sclerophyll SRM 503, 208, 207 FOFEM default used 

under typical condition 

Chihauhuan Desert 

Scrub

Scrub-microphyllous SAF 242, 068 and SRM 

729, 211 

FOFEM default used 

under typical condition 

Riparian Tree-cottonwoodwillowSRM 422 FOFEM default used 

under typical condition 

Madrean Evergreen 

Woodland

Tree-mixed SAF 241, and SRM 734, 

733 

FOFEM default used 

under typical condition 

Petran Montane 

Conifer Forest

Tree-conifer SAF 240, 237, 210, and 

SRM 110, 109

FOFEM default used 

under typical condition 

Table 4.2 ñ Average Emission Factors

Planning Area Emission Factor (ton/acre)

(RMP/MFP) Part of Planning Area PM10 PM2.5 CH4 CO NOxa

Eastern half of area 0.135 0.114 0.064 1.327 0.038 

Arizona Strip Western half of area 0.130 0.111 0.063 1.309 0.037 

Northern half of area 0.135 0.114 0.064 1.327 0.038 

Phoenix Southern half of area 0.138 0.117 0.065 1.339 0.038 

Northern half of area 0.031 0.027 0.016 0.330 0.009 

Kingman Southern half of area 0.026 0.022 0.007 0.078 0.002 

Northern half of area 0.099 0.084 0.047 0.958 0.027 

Safford Southern half of area 0.090 0.077 0.042 0.856 0.024 

Lower Gila South Entire area 0.013 0.011 0.005 0.063 0.002 

Lower Gila North Entire area 0.013 0.011 0.005 0.063 0.002 

Yuma Entire area 0.013 0.011 0.005 0.063 0.002 a

Based on CO factor
4-3 

4.1.1 No-Action Alternative

Under this alternative, air quality would be 

periodically impacted for sustained periods by smoke 

and particulate matter produced by large wildfires. 

Negative impacts to air quality could be exacerbated 

by multiple large wildfires occurring simultaneously, 

as has historically happened under this alternative. 

Smoke dispersal and particulate matter content is

unregulated during these wildfire episodes.

4.1.2 Proposed Action Alternative

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts:

Under this alternative, short-term, minor adverse 

impacts to air quality with respect to PM10 and CO 

are anticipated. Minor increases in PM10 or CO 

concentrations would not be sufficient to cause any 

change in the NAAQS attainment status. Adverse 

impacts on visibility resulting from smoke emissions 

would be localized and only last for the duration of 

the burn since prescribed burns are likely to be 

conducted during optimal smoke dispersion periods. 

Adverse health impacts are not anticipated.

The proposed action in the long run improves air 

quality and visibility compared to the No-Action 

Alternative for the following two reasons. Prescribed 

fires produce less smoke emission than wildfires 

because they are normally conducted during optimal 

smoke dispersion periods, under less extreme 

conditions, and in forest environments fires primarily 

affect ground level fuel. Secondly, areas that have 

been treated with prescribed fires have reduced fuel 

loads. This decreases the potential for catastrophic 

wildfires that might occur in those areas resulting in a 

net reduction in smoke emission.

The adverse air quality impacts would be short-term. 

Cumulative effects of air emissions (PM10 and CO) 

and visibility problems from existing sources, such as 

stationary point sources, fireplace, road ducts,

construction sites, agricultural activities, automobile, 

etc., in the areas or contiguous land across state line 

could have minor to moderate adverse impacts. The 

proposed action would bring about an improvement 

in air quality in the long-term due to reduction in fuel 

load and less fire fighting activities.

4.2 Soil Resources

Fire can have a wide range of impacts on soils 

because of the inherent variability of soils, vegetative 

cover, fire behavior, environmental conditions, and 

treatment method. These impacts can be evaluated 

most effectively on a site-specific basis. This section 

evaluates general impacts to soils from the No-Action 

and the Proposed Action Alternatives.

4.2.1 No-Action Alternative

Suppression of all wildfires in accordance with the

current fire management plans would have no new 

impact on soils. Existing impacts in fire-affected 

areas include greater susceptibility to accelerated soil 

erosion and sedimentation due to fire suppression 

activities and the loss of vegetative cover. The 

severity of the erosion is dependent on soil texture, 

slope, vegetative cover return intervals, and the 

precipitation intensity after the soil is disturbed. At 

the same time, the absence of fire can lead to greater 

fuel loads that could increase the frequency and 

intensity of fires in the long-term. As the intensity of 

the fire increases, the severity and duration of 

impacts on soils also generally increases. 

Fire affects the physical, chemical, and microbial 

properties of soil. Catastrophic, high intensity fires 

have the most severe and long-lasting negative 

impact on soils. Higher temperature fires occur 

where thick, dry litter layers accumulate, heating 

soils to a greater depth (up to 4 inches) and a higher 

surface temperature (approximately 750°F or higher) 

compared to lower intensity fires (less than 1 inch 

and 250°F or lower). Above ground vegetative cover 

and organic matter, and below ground root systems 

provide structure and stability for the soil. Intense 

fires remove organic matter and vegetative cover 

more completely and deeply, leaving soil more 

susceptible to large-scale, accelerated erosion. 

Soil heating also reduces soil organic matter and can 

cause shifts in microbial populations that affect 

nutrient cycling. Organic matter helps regulate soil 

moisture, the carbon/nitrogen ratio, microbial 

populations, and maintains soil structure, porosity 

and cation exchange capacity. Although many soils 

on BLM administered land in Arizona are low in 

organic matter, even small amounts contribute to 

these important soil properties. 

One of the more severe affects of fire on soils is the 

formation of water-repellent layers through heating 

of organic compounds. This phenomenon, known as 

hydrophobicity, most commonly occurs on dry, 

coarse textured (sandy) soils that support shrub 

vegetation communities, such as chaparral. 

Hydrophobicity is most severe in soils heated to 

intermediate temperature (approximately 350 to 

550°F). The formation of water-repellent layers can 

dramatically increase soil erosion, directly by 

inhibiting moisture infiltration, and indirectly by 
4-4 

inhibiting vegetative recovery. Higher intensity fires 

can also increase impermeability in the limited areas 

with soils containing higher clay content.

Fire suppression is preferred on BLM administered 

lands with soils supporting non-fire adapted 

vegetation (Table 4.3). These non-fire adapted areas 

are generally characterized by soils that are low in 

nutrients, organic matter and water holding capacity, 

and associated with arid or semi-arid environments. 

These characteristics would indicate slow fire return 

intervals, which would prolong the exposure of the 

soil surface to accelerated erosion from wind or 

precipitation. Soils on steeper slopes are especially 

vulnerable. 

Other fire-related activities that disturb 

the soil surface or vegetative cover, such as road and 

fireline construction, or mechanical fuel reduction, 

would also increase susceptibility of the soil to 

erosion. 

4.2.2 Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts:

Prescribed fires, and/or mechanical, chemical, or 

biological fuels reduction treatments would be 

considered on BLM administered lands with soils 

supporting fire adapted vegetation communities 

(Table 4.4). The direct impact of these actions 

would include effects on erosion, soil permeability 

and soil fertility. 

Table 4.3 ñ Percentage Of Non-Fire Adapted Vegetation Supported On 

Soil Suborders On BLM Administered Land In Arizona

Non Soils suborders -fire adapted vegetation 

communities Orthids Argids Orthents Ustolls Fluvents Ustalfs

Lower Sonoran Desertscrub (%) 35 20 19 0 3 0

Upper Sonoran Desertscrub (%) 28 28.5 44 2.0 6 11

Mojave Desertscrub (%) 8.5 15 4.5 0.4 4 0

Chihuahuan Desertscrub (%) 0.5 8.5 0.2 0.5 11 0

Total (%) 72 72 67.7 2.9 24 11

Table 4.4 ñ Percentage Of Fire Adapted Vegetation Supported On 

Soil Suborders On BLM Administered Land In Arizona

Soils suborders Fire adapted vegetation 

communities Orthids Argids Orthents Ustolls Fluvents Ustalfs

Great Basin Woodland (%) 9.5 6.7 6.4 42.5 11.1 70.6

Great Basin Desertscrub(%) 11.6 4.6 4.9 2.5 13.3 7.0

Plains and Great Basin Grassland (%) 5.4 4.1 6.0 2.7 33.3 4.8

Semidesert Grassland (%) 0.3 7.9 3.7 32.9 3.8 2.1

Interior Chaparral (%) 0.1 2.8 8.8 11.9 0 4.1

Madrean Evergreen Woodland (%) 0 0.2 0.7 2.9 0 0.1

Montane Conifer Forest (%) 0 0.01 0.1 1.6 0 0.4

 Riparian (%)1 0.9 1.2 2.1 0.1 7.1 0

Total (%) 27.8 27.5 32.7 97.1 68.6 89.1

1

 Riparian areas are not generally considered fire adapted, however prescribed fires may be necessary in some instances.
4-5 

Prescribed fires and mechanical fuel reduction 

treatments would directly impact soil by increasing 

erosion rates due to fireline construction or road 

building, especially on steeper slopes. Heavy 

equipment could increase soil compaction, slowing 

the re-establishment of vegetative cover. Chemical 

fuel reduction treatments may leave residues that can 

alter soil microbial populations or vegetative 

recovery, affecting the productivity of the soil and 

increasing the vulnerability to erosion. Care should 

be taken to minimize soil disturbance, and chemical 

residuals, and preserve some vegetative cover and 

root systems to stabilize the soil and speed recovery. 

Over time, less mechanical and chemical fuels 

treatments would be needed to reduce fuel loads. 

Prescribed fire can also impact soil properties and 

permeability as previously mentioned, especially if 

fires are allowed to reach higher temperatures. 

However, the frequency and intensity of the fires 

would decrease over time as fuel loads decrease, 

reducing some of the impacts on soil properties. 

Soils in riparian areas are not generally considered 

fire-adapted, but tend to be less vulnerable to 

detrimental soil heating due to the inherently higher 

water content. However, vegetative buffer strips 

should be maintained along these sensitive riparian 

areas to decrease stream sedimentation. Furthermore, 

organic soil that becomes dry will burn deeper and at 

higher temperatures, destroying the organic reserves 

and soil structure. If prescribed burns in riparian 

areas are necessary, they should be conducted when 

the soil and vegetation reach higher moisture 

contents, which decrease the likelihood of excessive 

soil heating and are favorable for rapid recovery of 

vegetation. Mechanical or chemical fuel treatments 

are not generally considered feasible in riparian areas 

for logistical reasons and the close proximity to 

water. 

Fire alters the microbial communities and nutrient 

cycling. Microbial populations can shift after fires or 

decline entirely for periods of time depending on the 

intensity of the fire. However, fire effects on soil 

microorganism communities are complex and not 

fully understood. Fire also effects nutrient cycling, 

primarily by increasing the pH in more acidic soils, 

which would affect nutrient availability to plants. 

However, arid and semi-arid soils, like those 

common in Arizona, are typically alkaline, and 

therefore pH is less likely to be affected (Clark, 

2001). Fire does increase nitrogen available for plant 

growth by converting nitrogen previously bound in 

unavailable forms, such as organic matter or woody 

material, into ash and a more plant available form of 

nitrogen (ammonium). However total nitrogen 

decreases from losses due to erosion or volatilization. 

Over time, nutrient deficiencies, particularly 

nitrogen, may result (Caldwell et.al., 2002; 

Macadam, 1989). Sulfur and phosphorous are also 

more readily lost, but to a lesser extent. Information 

is conflicting on the impact of these changes in 

nutrient availability, and the degree of long-term 

nitrogen loss is largely dependent on the intensity and 

frequency of the fire. 

The occurrence of catastrophic wildfires should 

decrease over time as fuel loads decline. Reducing 

severe wildfires can protect soils from long-term 

damage and degradation of the soil properties, 

fertility and structure. Improving the long-term 

stability of the soils also improves the viability of the 

native fire-adapted vegetative communities the soil 

supports. Fire-adapted areas are less likely to be 

affected by repeated cycles of nutrient losses, and 

frequent, low-temperature fires have fewer, and 

shorter-lived effects on soils (McNabb, et al., 1990). 

Additionally, recent studies have shown erosion and 

sedimentation is up to 10 times lower following 

prescribed fires compared to high intensity wildfires 

(Wohlegmuth et.al. 1999). 

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures

Soil management considerations for prescribed fire.

Erosion

• Accelerated post-fire erosion is most dependent 

on slope steepness and the vegetative recovery 

interval.

• Preserve some coarse, woody material, 

vegetative root systems, organic matter and duff 

to help protect against soil erosion. 

• Minimize impacts of firelines and road 

construction by rehabilitating through 

replacement of soil or plant material as soon as 

possible.

Soil Heating

• Minimize soil heating whenever possible by 

removal of excess or piled duff. 

• Conduct prescribed burns while moisture content 

of fuels and soils is higher, limit the duration of 

the fire and penetration of the heat into the soil.

Riparian Areas

• Leave buffer zones along riparian areas to 

stabilize soils and decrease stream 

sedimentation.

• Use prescribed burns in riparian areas only when 

necessary and during higher soil and vegetative 

moisture conditions to minimize soil heating and 

organic matter loss, and speed vegetative 
4-6 

recovery. Fuels can be removed by mechanical 

treatment prior to prescribed burns.

4.3 Water Resources

This section describes potential consequences of fire 

on water resources and identifies the likely effects of 

fire management alternatives on water resources on 

BLM lands in Arizona. Potential effects of fire were 

considered in terms of effects on surface water 

quantity and quality and on groundwater resources. 

The effects of fire on water resources are largely 

indirect and delayed in time; when fires burn to 

surface waters, there can be substantial deposition of 

ash to the water, heating of the water, and loss of 

cover. More significant effects, however, typically 

result from water flow and erosion that occur with 

rainstorms and snowmelt that might not occur until 

many months after the fire.

4.3.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, increased fire 

frequency, size and severity would have extensive 

effects on water quality. As the area burned by fires 

increased, the effects would be reflected in an 

increase in the number of stream reaches in which 

water quality is affected, and by more severe 

degradation of waters within some stream systems 

(i.e., as the proportion of burned area increases in a 

given watershed). The overall extent of disturbance 

can be expected to increase at least in proportion to 

increases in the area burned; to the extent that fires 

burn hotter, with greater damage to soils, relative 

aggregate disturbance would be even greater. The 

extent of actual effects cannot be quantified, because 

the extent of damage depends, as noted above, on the 

area burned, severity of fire, slope, and erodability of 

soils in the burned area, and with the amount and 

intensity of subsequent rainfall in the area.

Most of the important effects of fire on water 

quantity and quality ultimately result from 

destruction of vegetation and soil litter by fire. 

Destruction of vegetation and litter can affect water 

in several ways, including decreased soil stability, 

leading to increased erosion of upland soils during 

rainstorms or snowmelt, and to loss of bank stability 

along streams. The ultimate effect is increased 

loadings of solutes, suspended solids and bedload to 

surface waters, adversely affecting water quality and 

aquatic flora and fauna. The suspended solids are 

eventually deposited, either within the stream 

channel, near the stream mouth in standing waters, or 

in adjacent bank and wetland/riparian areas. Loss of 

vegetation can also result in a temporary decrease in 

the infiltration capacity of soils, causing increased 

surface runoff and exacerbating erosion until the 

vegetation has been re-established in a burned area. 

In riparian areas, fire can have several consequences 

that result from loss of vegetation and soil litter, 

including loss of shading (leading to elevated water 

temperature), decreased retention of nutrients and 

toxins by vegetation and soil microfauna, and 

decreased retention of particulates from surface 

runoff across the riparian buffer. Fire suppression can 

also affect water resources; soils and vegetation in 

riparian areas by being disturbed or damaged by 

heavy equipment traffic, and components of foams 

and aerial retardants can be toxic to aquatic fauna if 

released into or near surface waters. 

The aggregate effect of these processes is primarily 

as changes to water quality ñ minor to very 

significant increases in suspended solids, and some 

times increases in temperature, nutrient and metal 

concentrations. The degree and duration of change 

are influenced by several factors, including size and 

severity of the fire, proximity of the burned area to 

surface waters, slope, erodability of soils, and amount 

and intensity of precipitation. Changes to conditions 

in the water column are temporary, and would wane 

as vegetation is re-established and erosion is 

controlled, but deposition of sediments can lead to 

long-term changes in stream morphology and habitat.

4.3.2 Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts:

Under the Proposed Action, fire and fuels would be 

managed in ways intended to create a more natural 

role for fire within ecosystems. Water resources have 

not been a major factor in planning fire and fuel 

management, except for management of streamside 

and riparian areas. As a critical element of the desired 

future conditions articulated for BLM-administered 

lands, nearly all waterways, creeks, and riparian areas 

would be managed as allocation 2, ìAreas not 

suitable for wildland fire use for resource benefitî. 

Under this approach, these areas would be subject to 

full suppression of all unplanned fires to protect 

endangered species and to maintain the values and 

condition of these systems. Fire suppression tactics 

in riparian areas would largely exclude use of heavy 

equipment to avoid disturbance and damage to the 

area, and would include restrictions on the use of 

foam and aerial retardants except as a ìlast resortî to 

avoid total loss of habitat. Use of prescribed burns 

would be limited to areas where they would favor 

protection or regeneration of native species (and 

suppression of exotic species), such an approach has 

been proposed along the San Pedro River and 
4-7 

Cienega Creek as a tool to reduce fuels and reduce 

potential mortality of cottonwood/willow gallery 

forest that would occur with high-intensity fire. 

Conversely, mechanical treatment has been proposed 

for riparian areas in the Yuma/Lake Havasu 

management zone to create fire breaks between fire 

intolerant (native) and tolerant (exotic) species, in an 

area where fire would favor the invasive species.

As vegetation conditions move toward desired 

conditions over a period of several years, fuel loads 

would decrease in many areas. As this occurs, it is 

expected that there would be a decrease in the 

occurrence of catastrophic fires, with fewer large, 

intense fires. Part of the decrease would be offset by 

increasing the area and frequency of prescribed 

burns, but these would be planned and implemented 

as smaller, cooler fires, with correspondingly less 

impact to vegetation and soil, in turn reducing the 

potential extent of erosion and degradation of water 

quality. 

In considering environmental consequences of 

management decisions related to fire and fuel 

management, it is unlikely that management 

decisions would cause any substantive or long-term 

changes in the occurrence of surface water resources. 

Disturbance by fire, mechanical removal of 

vegetation, changes in plant species, etc., have the 

potential to cause at least transient changes in water 

quality, particularly for suspended solids and 

nutrients, as discussed in Section 3.1.3.3.

As desired conditions are attained, direct effects of 

fire on water quality would be expected to decrease, 

for two reasons. First, the frequency of fires burning 

into, and through, streamside and riparian areas can 

be expected to decrease as a consequence of the 

overall decrease in the number of large, catastrophic 

fires. In addition, as suppression policies change and 

vegetation conditions improve, fire management 

resources would be focused on suppression of fires in 

allocation 2, ìAreas not suitable for use for resource 

benefitî. Effects on groundwater resources are 

expected to be negligible. 

As desired conditions are attained, the occurrence 

and degree of water quality degradation resulting 

from indirect effects of fire (primarily erosion), can 

also be expected to decrease. By replacing large, hot 

fires with smaller, cooler fires, survival of desirable 

vegetation would increase, and damage to the soil 

would decrease. Decreases in the extent and duration 

of erosion should follow, reducing the number and 

length of stream reaches affected. More importantly, 

by decreasing the severity of fire and managing the 

size and location of fire, the severity of erosion and 

extent of water quality degradation within an affected 

watershed would be expected to decrease. Recent 

analyses by the Forest Service (USFS 2003) suggest 

that use of thinning and prescribed fire could reduce 

sediment yields in western ecosystems by a factor of 

30 to 70 compared to losses following wildfire. To 

insure that water quality considerations are included 

in planning for fire management, including planning 

of prescribed burns, it would be desirable to adjust 

land categories to minimize effects of fire on water 

quality for areas where: potential for soil erosion is 

high due to slope and/or erodability of soils (Section 

4.2); water quality is known to be impaired (e.g., 

303(d) or planning listed waters); or where waters 

have been identified by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality as ìunique watersî because of 

their ìexceptional recreational or ecological 

significanceî or because they provide critical habitat 

for endangered species. 

Effects of fire on water quality are generally of short 

duration, lasting only until vegetation is reestablished on a burned area. As such, cumulative 

effects of fire on water quality are best considered in 

terms of the area affected, and by the degree of water 

quality degradation, rather than in terms of long-term 

temporal changes to a water body. As described in 

Section 4.3.2, implementation of the Proposed Action 

would be expected, as fuels and fire management 

evolve over several years, to decrease both the extent 

and severity of water quality degradation attributable 

to direct and to indirect affects of fire. Under the 

National Fire Plan, all federal land managers are 

mandated to reduce occurrence of catastrophic fires 

through changes to fire and fuels management. As 

programs are implemented on other federal and tribal 

lands, the occurrence of catastrophic fires in Arizona 

should decrease, and cumulative extent and severity 

of water quality degradation should likewise 

decrease. 

4.4 Vegetation Resources

The purpose of this section is to identify the likely 

vegetation resource outcomes associated with the 

BLM management alternatives. Direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts to vegetation are discussed 

generally; the actual impacts would vary among the 

12 vegetation communities. The following address a

useful comparison of the scope and type of effects 

that are expected under the No-Action and the 

Proposed Action Alternative.
4-8 

4.4.1 No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative would result in no new 

impacts to the 12 vegetation communities. All 

wildfiresó regardless of ignition sourceó would be 

suppressed in accordance with current LUPs and fire 

management plans. The primary impact would the 

continuation of periodic wildfires, including large 

catastrophic wildfires (Brown 2000). It is anticipated 

that the number and acres burned will increase in 

future years following the trend in past years as 

shown in Table 4.5. Under the No-Action 

Alternative, hazardous fuels will continue to 

accumulate in the vegetation communities at rates 

respective to past years. The accumulation of 

hazardous fuels is a continuing concern especially in 

the WUI. The WUI will probably increase in 

importance as people continue to build houses near 

forests and rangelands. 

Continuation of the current policies would lead to 

changes in the composition and structure of 

vegetation communities that eventually would lead to 

a loss of native plant diversity (Brown 2000). Fire 

dependant plant communities would continue to 

change as a result of continued fire suppression. 

Ecological conditions for vegetation would continue 

unchanged from the current state; however, this 

current state is quite different from the conditions 

under which these communities evolved.

Under the No-Action Alternative, it can be expected 

that ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper forests would 

trend towards over-dense conditions, leading to 

forest health problems associated with insects, 

disease, drought, and fire. Grasslands would 

continue to be encroached upon by woody species 

such as sagebrush and juniper. Interior chaparral 

would continue to be encroached upon by 

forest/woodlands species at higher elevations. Exotic 

weeds would continue to increase in all vegetation 

communities.

4.4.2 Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts:

The landscape under the Proposed Action would be 

divided into four fire management categories 

regardless of vegetation community. The fire 

management categories would be defined based on 

wildfire threat to human life and property, and 

historic fire return intervals. Hazardous fuel reduction 

would be vigorously pursued to reduce the risk of 

wildfire in the WUI and improve rangeland and 

forest health. The degree of fire suppression varies 

among the two allocations. Table 4.6 documents the 

hazardous fuel reduction projects under the nochange scenario (years 1990-2003).

Table 4.5 ñ Comparison Between the Annual Average Number and Burned Acres of HumanCaused and Lightening-Caused Fire on BLM Lands in Arizona 

Human Caused Fires Lightening Caused Fires

Year Number Acres Burned Number Acres Burned

1983-1987 73 3,453 67 8,429

1988-1992 87 3,160 91 3,747

1993-1997 104 7,228 147 23,969

1998-2002 108 7,685 121 8,451

Table 4.6 ñ Types of Fuels Reduction Treatments on BLM Lands in Arizona Since 1990

Fuel Reduction Treatment

Prescribed Fire Mechanical Biological Chemical

Year Acres Acres Acres Acres

1990-1994 600 0 0 0

1995-1999 21,060 18 0 8,382

2000-2002 16,532 128 0 9,560

2003 31,000 2,720 0 2,000
4-9 

Under the Proposed Action, it is assumed that the 

Desired Future Conditions would be achieved over 

the next several years. As the Desired Future 

Conditions are achieved there would be fewer 

impacts to vegetation communities from catastrophic 

wildfire losses. The need for emergency post-fire 

rehabilitation to control soil erosion, the loss of 

wildlife habitat and livestock grazing land, and other 

effects would decrease. The continuing trend of 

building houses in the WUI is expected but with the 

reduction of hazardous fuels the risk of wildfire loss 

should also decrease.

The Proposed Action would have a direct impact on 

existing vegetation communities in that hazardous 

fuel reduction would occur to decrease the 

probability of catastrophic wildfire from occurring 

(Paysen et al. 2000). Over the long-term, the 

Proposed Action would reduce hazardous fuels using 

management tools such as prescribed fire, 

mechanical, biological (including livestock grazing), 

and chemical treatments. Vegetation communities 

should return to their historic range of variability 

with regards to fuel load and type. Also, the natural 

occurrence of fuels and the historic fire regime 

reflective of a vegetation community should occur.

The direct effect on vegetation from hazardous fuels 

reduction by prescribed fire, mechanical, biological, 

and chemical tools would be primarily short-term and 

temporary and would be in the form of soil erosion, 

inadvertent damage to habitat, and damage to 

desirable plants. However, vegetation is resilient and 

recovery should be short term. Fuels reduction 

treatments would need to be re-administered every 

few years to maintain the normal range of variability. 

The management of natural occurring wildfire would 

remove unwanted hazardous fuels and improve 

wildlife habitat. The implementation of prescribed 

fire, mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments 

each pose direct negative impacts to vegetation 

communities such as soil erosion and damage to 

desirable plants. The removal of diseased, invasive, 

and overstocked plants would encourage the growth 

of healthy forest and rangeland vegetation. Under 

certain conditions, the re-seeding of desirable plant 

species may be necessary to inhibit weed 

establishment in areas where fuel reduction 

treatments have been implemented.

Impacts to vegetation from the Proposed Action are 

inherently direct, so there would be few indirect 

impacts. The ability of weeds to become established 

would decrease as desirable plant competition for 

space, light, nutrients, and water increases. As a 

result of prescribed fires, animals that are able would 

emigrate to adjoining suitable habitat, which could 

cause short-term (one year) impacts to vegetation 

habitats from this shift in population. 

Vegetation communities in Arizona and throughout 

the United States have been impacted by the 

introduction of invasive species or noxious weeds 

(Howey and Ruyle 2002).. The ability of noxious 

weeds to become established and dominate would be 

reduced under the Proposed Action. 

4.5 Fire Ecology

This section identifies the potential changes in fire 

ecology associated with the BLM management 

alternatives. Fire ecology of a vegetation community 

refers to fire behavior, return interval, and fuel load. 

Fire ecology is inseparable from the type of 

vegetation community. Therefore, changes to the 

character of a vegetation community will also affect 

its fire ecology. 

4.5.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, wildfire and 

vegetation community management would occur as 

in past years with a fire suppression policy and the 

continued accumulation of hazardous fuels. The fire 

suppression policy of past years has allowed high 

accumulation of hazard fuels, an increase in 

undesirable woody species, insect and mistletoe 

damage to woody plants, and weeds to increase 

dominance, which all contribute to unnatural, 

catastrophic wildfire (Howey and Ruyle 2002). Table 

4.5 illustrates the increasing trend in the number of 

fires and acres burned during the years 1983ñ2000. 

Continuation of this management approach would 

result in continued alterations to the natural fire 

regime (preventing fire from being a natural 

disturbance with a predicable return frequency), 

increased fuel loads outside the normal range of 

variability, and catastrophic wildfires because of the 

abnormally high accumulation of fuel. Fire would not 

be used to control the accumulation of fuel and help 

maintain normal vegetation composition, structure, 

and productivity characteristic of the vegetation 

community. Under the No-Action Alternative, fire 

would not be consistently managed by BLM across 

Arizona. 

4.5.2 Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts:

Historically, fire was a natural component of many 

forest and rangeland ecosystems in Arizona 

(Swetman and Baisan 1994). To manage fire as a 
4-10 

natural component of ecosystems and achieve the 

Desired Future Conditions, the landscape under the 

Proposed Action would be divided into two 

allocations related to vegetation community, the role 

fire plays within that community, and resource 

objectives. The fire management categories would be 

defined based on wildfire threat to human life and 

property, and historic fire return intervals. Hazardous 

fuel reduction would be pursued to reduce the risk of 

wildfire in the WUI and improve rangeland and 

forest health. The immediate direct affect of the 

Proposed Action is the reduction of hazardous fuels.

The Proposed Action would have a direct impact on 

existing fire ecology in that hazardous fuel reduction 

would decrease the occurrence of catastrophic 

wildfire (Brown 2000). Over the long-term, the 

Proposed Action would reduce hazardous fuels using 

management tools such as prescribed fire, 

mechanical, biological (including livestock grazing), 

and chemical treatments. The natural occurrence of 

fuels and the historic fire regime reflective of a 

vegetation community should occur.

The direct effect on fire ecology from hazardous 

fuels reduction by prescribed fire, mechanical, 

biological, and chemical tools would be long term 

and would encourage normal fire behavior and return 

intervals. Fuels reduction treatments would need to 

be re-administered every few years to maintain a 

normal range of variability. The management of 

natural occurring wildfire would remove unwanted 

hazardous fuels, improve wildlife habitat, and 

increase the health and vigor of vegetation (Brown 

2000). The implementation of prescribed fire, 

mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments 

would each directly impact vegetation communities 

through soil erosion, damage to desirable plants and 

wildlife habitat. However, because vegetation is 

resilient these effects would be short term. The 

removal of diseased, invasive, and densely-growing 

vegetation would encourage the growth of healthy 

forest and rangeland vegetation. Under certain 

conditions, the re-seeding of desirable plant species 

may be necessary to inhibit weed establishment in 

areas where fuel reduction treatments have been 

implemented.

Impacts to vegetation and fire ecology from the 

Proposed Action are inherently direct, no other 

indirect impacts to fire ecology were identified. 

The National Fire Plan applies to the U.S, Forest 

Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as 

well as the BLM. All of these agencies administer 

federal land in Arizona and have fire management 

responsibilities. These agencies are mandated to take 

the necessary measures to reduce the occurrence of 

catastrophic wildfire through the reduction of 

hazardous fuels and improvements in forest and 

rangeland health. Cumulatively, as these agencies 

seek to return vegetation communities to their normal 

composition, structure, and productivity, there should 

be an overall improvement in forest and rangeland 

health and wildlife habitat throughout the state. The 

overall occurrence and acres burned from 

catastrophic wildfire should decrease. State and local 

agencies, and Private land owners may become 

involved in this effort through partnerships with 

federal agencies. 

4.6 Invasive or Noxious 

Weeds

4.6.1 No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative represents continuation of 

current invasive or noxious weed management. No 

new impacts would occur under this alternative. The 

primary impacts from continuing the current fire 

management practices are periodic catastrophic 

wildfire which may contribute to the continued 

spread of invasive and noxious weeds (McAuliffe 

1995, Brooks and Pyke 2002). Fire leaves varioussized parcels of land denuded of vegetation. This 

situation is conducive for the rapid colonization and 

establishment of invasive or noxious weeds. Each 

catastrophic fire and suppression effort opens up the

burned area to infestation of invasive or noxious 

weeds. The re-occurrence of a fire shortly after a 

previous fire usually worsens weed infestation. 

Furthermore, continued development of new houses 

in the WUI also creates disturbed areas where weeds 

or invasive species can become easily established and 

would contribute to increased fire hazard. The ability 

of many weeds to rapidly colonize recently disturbed 

areas results from the production of numerous seeds 

capable of wide dissemination and germination under 

a wide range of environmental conditions. Weed 

seedlings are able to grow rapidly and out-compete 

desirable plants for water, nutrients, light, and space. 

Once weeds are established, it is difficult for 

desirable vegetation to displace them without 

management intervention. Many weeds contribute to 

hazardous fuel loads because the senesced leaves and 

stems are highly flammable (Brooks 2002). When 

wildfires take place on sites where weeds constitute a 

high proportion of the plant mix, they usually burn 

hotter and faster than those with fuels comprised 

solely of native vegetation, and as such, can pose an 

increased risk to human life and ecosystem processes. 

Once the weeds are sufficiently abundant the 
4-11 

likelihood of fire increases with the fire return 

interval becoming higher/more frequent. 

4.6.2 Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts:

Under the Proposed Action, the Desired Future 

Condition should be achieved over a period of 

several years. As the Desired Future Condition is 

achieved, weed invasion into new areas in response 

to catastrophic fire should decrease. Weed control 

would be vigorously pursued to reduce the risk of 

wildfire in the WUI and improve rangeland and 

forest health. The immediate direct affect of the 

Proposed Action is the reduction of hazardous, highly 

flammable fuels. Over the long-term, the Proposed 

Action would reduce and replace weed populations 

with desirable, less flammable native vegetation. 

Hazardous fuel reduction projects targeted at weeds 

such as buffalograss or cheatgrass may reduce total 

infested acreage. Invasive or noxious weed control to 

reduce fire hazard can occur by a variety of ways 

including chemical, prescribed fire, biological, and 

mechanical or a combination of techniques (Howey 

and Ruyle 2002). After any weed control treatment 

is administered it is essential to deter the reestablishment of weeds. Encouraging the growth and 

productivity of desirable vegetation would most 

likely inhibit the re-establishment of the invasive 

weeds. The degree and type of rehabilitation 

management would depend of the nature and severity 

of the weed control treatment. Changes in plant 

composition may be all that is needed on rangelands 

where minimal weed control has been implemented. 

However, rangelands where wildfire or prescribed 

burns have occurred would need aggressive 

rehabilitation practices to reduce the chances of weed 

domination before desirable plants can become 

established. Management practices may include soil 

erosion control and the seeding of desirable native 

and non-native perennial grasses, and shrubs and 

forbs. Appropriate seed mixtures of native and nonnative plants seeded at appropriate times are effective 

in becoming quickly established and not allowing 

weed seedlings to take root and would also minimize 

soil erosion.

The desired improvement to vegetation communities 

and the WUI from the Proposed Action would not 

occur immediately but may require 10ñ15 years to 

achieve. Vegetation communities should return to 

their normal composition, structure and productivity 

which, in turn, would affect the nature and severity of 

fires. Prior to European settlement, fire was a 

common and widespread ecological disturbance in 

Arizona (Swetman and Basian 1994). The 

fragmentation of ecosystems and reduction of fuels 

caused by grazing and cultivation that came with 

European settlement, along with fire suppression, 

caused a significant decrease in fire occurrence and 

size in comparison with the historic natural range of 

variability. Indicative changes in plant composition, 

structure and productivity that have occurred on some 

sites would unlikely have occurred in the preEuropean settlement environment. Over the long 

term, vegetation communities should return to their 

natural composition, structure, and productivity 

resulting in improved health and vigor with the return 

of a natural fire regime. Wildlife habitat quality and 

diversity would increase with improved vegetation 

community health. The ability of invasive species to 

become established would decrease as desirable plant 

competition for space, light, nutrients, and water 

increases. The occurrence of catastrophic wildfire 

would decrease as vegetation communities achieve 

their normal composition, structure, and productivity.

The National Fire Plan applies to the U.S. Forest 

Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as 

well as the BLM. All of these agencies administer 

federal land in Arizona and have fire management 

and weed control responsibilities. These agencies are 

mandated to take the necessary measures to reduce 

the occurrence of catastrophic wildfire through the 

reduction of hazardous fuels including weeds and to 

improve forest and rangeland health. As these 

agencies seek to return vegetation communities to 

their normal composition, structure, and productivity 

through weed control practices, there should be an 

overall improvement in forest and rangeland health 

and wildlife habitat. The overall occurrence and 

acres burned from catastrophic wildfire should 

decrease. State and local agencies and private land 

owners may become involved through partnerships 

with federal agencies.

4.7 Wild Free-Roaming Horses 

and Burros

4.7.1 No-Action Alternative

Information on the effects of wildland fire on WHBs 

and the animalís response to fire is limited. 

Information is available on some large mammals that 

share habitat with Wild Free-Roaming Horses and 

Burros (WHBs). For example, WHBs share habitat 

with desert bighorn sheep, desert mule deer, coyotes, 

fox and jackrabbits. 
4-12 

The primary impacts to WHBs from continuing the 

current fire management practices are from large, 

catastrophic wildfires. Wildland fires generally kill 

or injure a relatively small proportion of large 

mammal populations, although large, intense, standclearing fires are dangerous to animals caught in its 

path. In large wildfires, large mammals must find a 

safe location in unburned patches or outside the burn. 

Large mammal mortality would be most likely from 

fires with wide and fast moving fronts, that are 

actively crowning, and that have thick ground smoke 

occurs (USFS, 2000). 

Large wildfires would indirectly affect WHBs 

through the loss of habitat and the reduction of forage 

and available cover. Wildland fires would force 

WHBs to travel long distances out of fire areas to 

find food and water. Because large mammals depend 

on vegetation for forage, bedding, cover, and thermal 

protection, they would abandon burned areas if fire 

removes many of the habitat features they need. 

Thus, catastrophic fires and understory burns that are 

severe enough to top-kill shrubs and young trees 

would likely trigger higher rates of emigration than 

patchy or low-severity fires. Impact would be 

greatest to mares with foals. The season of burn 

could also be an important factor in mortality. 

During winter months, many WHBs would be 

stressed by being on unfamiliar rangeland which has 

little available forage and water. Herd areas would 

be disrupted and movement patterns could also be 

interrupted by large-scale fire rehabilitation efforts. 

As a result of large wildland fires, WHBs could be 

moved under an emergency gather, or WHBs could 

also seek forage on other HMAs, leading to overuse 

of that vegetation. 

4.7.2 Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts:

Under the Proposed Action, there would be few 

direct impacts to WHBs from chemical, mechanical, 

or biological treatment methods. WHBs would be 

expected to avoid human contact associated with 

treatment activities. Prescribed fires and natural-start 

fires would impact WHBs through the temporary loss 

of habitat and the reduction of forage and available 

cover. Small, patchy or low-severity fires associated 

with prescribed fire would have less impact than 

large, catastrophic fires. Prescribed fire would not be

large enough to force WHBs onto unfamiliar 

rangeland. 

Most of the literature regarding the relationship 

between fire and large mammals focuses on firecaused changes in vegetation and how habitat 

changes influence animal populations. As discussed 

in Section 4.4.2, burning often increases and 

improves forage, the biomass of forage, and 

sometimes the nutritional content and digestibility of 

plants. Prescribed burns would improve WHB 

habitat by diversifying the plant community and 

increasing the percentage of perennial grass and 

desirable shrub ground cover. Because ungulates are 

sensitive to alterations in vegetation structure, 

however, their net response to fire depends on its 

severity and uniformity (USFS, 2000). 

The Proposed Action would result in temporary 

reduction in available forage for WHBs. Large scale, 

intensive fire in contiguous stands of grass and shrub 

communities would affect WHBs by decreasing 

availability of forage and cover. The impact would be 

greater if the treated area is favored for forage, 

foaling, or cover. This should extend the period of 

time WHBs can use any given area. Fire can also 

negatively affect habitat when range condition is poor 

and forage species cannot recover, when 

nonsprouting species that provide forage are 

eliminated, or when too much area is burned and 

forage is inadequate in the home range until the next 

growing season. 

To mitigate potential impacts to WHBs, naturallyignited fires and prescribed fires should not be 

allowed to burn extensive, contiguous areas of any 

one HMA in the same year. Because horses are 

terrified of fire and will run wildly, when horses are 

present in the area, prescribed fires set in close 

proximity to fences should be started in such a way to 

decrease the likelihood of horses running through the 

fence. Burning should also be limited during the peak 

foaling period from March 1 through June 30. 

In addition to the BLM, other Federal agencies that 

manage lands in Arizona are expected to undertake 

actions to reduce the occurrence of catastrophic 

wildfire through the management of hazardous fuels. 

As the Federal agencies, including BLM, implement 

fire management activities (both wildfire suppression 

and treatment activities to reduce wildfire fuels) on 

the ground, the frequency and location of effects to 

WHB populations and habitats increase across the 

landscape. WHBs may cross administrative 

boundaries onto other federal, state, or private lands. 

In the short-term (0-3 years), fire management 

activities in habitats proposed for intensive fuels 

reduction treatments (prescribe fire or mechanical, 

chemical, or biological treatments) would need to be 

coordinated among the Federal agencies to reduce the 

combined effects of lost habitat and forage on various 

Federally administered lands. The overall reduction 

in catastrophic wildfires on all Federal lands within 
4-13 

Arizona would also reduce the chance for direct 

mortality or emergency gathers of WHBs.

4.8 Fish and Wildlife 

Resources

The purpose of this section is to identify and predict 

the likely outcomes for fish and wildlife species and 

their habitats associated with BLM fire management 

alternatives. Direct impacts to fish and wildlife 

resources from fire or fire management activities may 

result in mortality or displacement of individuals, 

disturbance in reduced air or water quality from 

smoke and ash, and alteration of immediate post-fire 

or post-treatment environments through loss of or 

changes to key habitat components (e.g., food 

availability or quality, cover from predators, thermal 

refugia, nesting/denning habitat, water availability 

and quality, travel corridors, etc.) (Smith 2000, Esque 

et al., 2003). These direct impacts may affect 

wildlife populations or habitats for one or two 

seasons or for several years after a fire or a 

vegetation treatment activity, depending on the 

ability of the fish or wildlife species to recolonize 

burned or altered habitats, the severity of the habitat 

alteration, and the recovery time of the habitat. 

Indirect impacts to fish and wildlife resources from 

fire or fire management activities typically result 

from influences of post-fire succession, recovery, or 

rehabilitation of the habitat. These impacts may be 

long-term, depending on the severity of the habitat 

alteration, and may change species assemblages

(relative abundances or species composition), species 

behaviors, or overall population trends, benefiting 

some species and negatively affecting others (Smith 

2000, Esque et al. 2003).

The direct and indirect effects of wildfire (either 

catastrophic or managed) on fish and wildlife 

resources may vary widely, depending on a variety of 

factors such as animal species complex; size, shape, 

and habitat types of a fire-created mosaic; fire 

intensity, duration, and frequency; fire location, 

shape, and extent; season of burn; rate and 

composition of vegetation recovery; change in 

vegetation structure; type of soils; topography and 

microsites; and mobility of fish or wildlife species 

(i.e., ability to leave a site during a fire or recolonize 

a site after a fire). In addition, many of these same 

factors influence the effect of fire management 

activities (e.g., prescribed fire; mechanical, chemical, 

or biological treatments of fuel loads; and fire 

suppression) on fish and wildlife populations and 

habitat. Any effects to vegetation communities 

would affect the resident wildlife and fish 

populations. Vegetation characteristics such as 

structure, production, and composition provide or 

influence habitat suitability, such as seasonal cover 

and food availability, for particular predator and prey 

species.

The following discussion presents a comparison of 

the scope and type of effects that would be expected 

under the No-Action Alternative and the Proposed 

Action Alternative. Because of the variety of fish 

and wildlife species occupying BLM-administered 

lands in Arizona, and their diverse habitat 

requirements, it is difficult to generalize the effects of 

wildfire and fire management activities on these 

resources. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

are discussed generally, and the actual range of 

impacts would vary among fish and wildlife species 

and habitat types.

4.8.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, BLM would 

continue to suppress all wildfires, regardless of 

ignition source or vegetation type, in accordance with 

current LUP and Fire Management Plan direction. 

Continuing fire management under this alternative 

would result in no new impacts to fish and wildlife 

species and their habitats. Both direct and indirect 

effects to fish and wildlife resources from 

implementing the No-Action Alternative would be 

widespread, intense, and long-term or permanent.

The primary effects to fish and wildlife resources 

under the No-Action Alternative would be 

continuing, periodic loss or alteration of habitats 

from large, catastrophic fires, or conversely, from 

aggressive fire suppression techniques that alter the 

natural density, structure, and composition of fireadapted or fire-threatened habitats. The number of 

fires and acres burned as well as the intensity and 

severity of the burns is likely to increase. In Arizona, 

many fire-adapted vegetation communities (e.g.,

Great Basin Desertscrub, grassland, semi-desert 

grassland, chapparal, woodland, and forested 

habitats) on BLM-administered lands are overgrown 

with dense shrubs and young trees because they have 

been subjected to a regime of aggressive fire 

suppression and fire exclusion. The Sonoran 

Desertscrub and Mojave Desertscrub communities, 

which are not fire-adapted, are susceptible to and 

have been altered by unnatural fires because of the 

introduction and proliferation of non-native annual 

plants. The severe alteration of riparian areas from a 

variety of causes has left this important habitat type 

threatened by fire. The conditions of these vegetation 

communities affect the abundance and diversity of 

wildlife species directly by creating unfavorable 

habitat conditions for some species, while favoring 
4-14 

others. In addition, these fire-adapted and firethreatened vegetation communities are at high risk of 

unnatural, high-intensity wildfire events.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the likelihood of 

catastrophic stand-replacing or stand-altering fires in 

these habitats would increase, with the direct effects 

on fish and wildlife resources varying among species. 

Depending on species mobility, wildlife would 

experience impacts from mortality or displacement, 

harassment during fire suppression activities, and 

reduction of air quality from smoke and ash. For 

those species that cannot flee a burn, the most 

exposed habitat sites are dry, exposed slopes, hollow 

logs with a lot of exposed wood, burrows less than 5 

inches deep, lower branches of trees and shrubs, and 

poorly insulated underground or ground-nesting areas 

(Lawrence 1966 as cited by Peek 1986). While small 

animals (mammals, reptiles and amphibians) are most 

at risk for mortality because of their limited mobility, 

occasionally large mammals are killed by severe fastmoving wildfires, typically from smoke inhalation 

(Smith 2000). Catastrophic fires would also continue 

large-scale or intense alterations of habitat 

components for many fish and wildlife species, 

which would favor some species and displace others. 

Immediate post-fire conditions raise light penetration 

and temperatures on and immediately above and 

below soil surfaces and can reduce soil moisture, 

affecting ground-dwelling species (Lyon et al. 1978). 

Burning of cover and destruction of trees, shrubs, and 

forage modify habitat structure (Lyon et al. 1978, 

Smith 2000, Esque et al. 2003). The loss of small 

ground cover and charring of larger branches and 

logs would affect small animals and birds that use 

these components for nesting, thermal or escape 

cover, or foraging. Early vigorous vegetation growth 

immediately after a fire would alter feeding and 

nesting behaviors of some species (Lyon et al. 1978,

Smith 2000, Cunningham et al. 2001). Alterations in 

terrestrial or riparian habitats would also affect water 

quality and habitat components for fish and other 

aquatic species. Catastrophic wildfires leave the 

surrounding soil and accumulated ash vulnerable to 

erosion and remove shading streamside vegetation, 

increasing sedimentation and water temperature.

Catastrophic wildfires or long-term fire suppression 

strategies, as implemented under the No-Action 

Alternative, would also continue the indirect effects 

of changes in population dynamics (abundance, 

density, and reproduction) and long-term alteration of 

vegetation components over a large land area. 

Although fires may cause direct mortality to animals, 

the indirect effects to populations of different species 

are highly variable. Large-scale losses of small 

animals may be off-set by high reproductive potential 

and ability to recolonize burned sites. Animals with 

lower reproductive potential would experience longer 

term recovery from loss. Loss of a few large 

mammals from fire may not affect the overall 

population (Smith 2000). Overall, indirect effects to 

populations highly depend on the species and the 

severity of the habitat change caused by the fire.

Catastrophic fires may frequently create more 

homogeneous habitats within and among vegetation 

communities, thereby reducing or changing the 

assemblage of species occupying these altered 

habitats. While a shift in vegetation composition and 

succession is natural after a catastrophic fire, an 

extensive conversion with no interspersed patches of 

the former habitat type is not characteristic of the fire 

regime in most vegetation communities of Arizona. 

These unnaturally large or severe habitat changes 

present several problems for resident wildlife and fish 

populations that could extend many years into the 

future.

For example, fires burning a ponderosa pine/mixedconifer forest in which years of fire exclusion have 

created unnaturally high fuel loads can potentially 

kill virtually all of the trees and understory vegetation 

with extensive crown runs. Because of this severe 

habitat alteration and the slow recovery of forested 

habitats (large, old-growth trees), the burned area 

may spend decades as a site dominated by a shrub 

community interspersed with numerous large snags. 

While these new conditions may favor bird species 

inhabiting dense shrub communities or woodpecker 

species requiring snags, forest-dependent species 

would be excluded from the site. High-intensity fires 

create large numbers of snags that are normally of 

high value to many wildlife species (Smith 2000). 

Their value, however, is reduced for some species if 

the area of snags is too large and surrounding 

vegetation does not afford other necessities, such as 

food and cover. Also, high-intensity fires result in 

fewer snags several years later as the fire created 

snags fall and growth of the single-age class forest to 

a snag-producing age takes many decades (Smith 

2000).

In lower elevation vegetation communities, such as 

Sonoran or Mojave Desert Scrub, increases in 

invasive grass and shrub species have altered these 

habitats to a point where fires now carry in habitats 

that are intolerant of fire or fire suppression activities. 

Wildfire can cause rapid and profound changes in 

desertscrub habitats, both in the short-term and longterm, because many desert plants are not well adapted 

to large disturbances by fire (Esque et al. 2003). For 

example, the large cactus species that provide critical 

nesting and foraging habitat for many wildlife 
4-15 

species, may take decades or centuries to recover 

from fire. In addition, fires now burn hotter and 

farther, reducing the natural mosaic pattern (patchy 

distribution of plants and open space) typical to 

desertscrub communities (Esque et al. 2003). 

Although aggressive suppression of wildfires would 

continue under the No-Action Alternative, 

catastrophic fires in these fire-intolerant habitats 

would lead to mortality, displacement, loss of food 

and shelter, and changes in animal communities for 

fish and wildlife species not historically impacted by 

fires or fire suppression activities. While extirpation 

(100% mortality) of entire populations in burned 

areas is unlikely, direct mortality of wildlife 

(particularly small animals) in desert fires is fairly 

common, although highly variable (Esque et al. 

2003).

Under the No-Action Alternative, it is unlikely that 

resource objectives to return altered wildlife and fish 

habitats to a more desired condition (e.g., increases in 

native vegetation communities, return of vegetative 

structure to more natural conditions, reduction of 

invasive weed species, increases in habitat 

heterogeneity) could be achieved, as severity and 

suppression of catastrophic wildfires would continue 

to dominate wildfire management activities. Indirect 

effects to wildlife and fish habitats and populations 

from long-term changes in vegetation composition 

and structure caused by aggressive fire suppression 

and catastrophic wildfires would continue in all 

vegetation communities under the No-Action 

Alternative.

Fire suppression activities also have direct and 

indirect effects on fish and wildlife species and their 

habitats. Water that is removed from small bodies of 

water for helicopter bucket drops may affect aquatic 

organisms by depleting their habitat, removing 

individuals (particularly in small isolated 

populations), or spreading disease or non-native, 

predatory species (e.g., bullfrogs) among different 

water sources. Conversely, water drops can, in some 

circumstances, be used instead of hand line 

construction ("wet-lining") to control fire movement. 

This tactic would result in less impact to soil, forest 

litter, and vegetation than hand line construction and, 

therefore, would have less impact on wildlife, both in 

intensity and duration. Some terrestrial wildlife 

could be struck by water or retardant drops, resulting 

in injury or chemical contamination or be disturbed 

by the low-flying aircraft. Construction of helispots 

often results in the felling of trees and snags, which 

are important habitat components. In addition, 

helicopter traffic would likely disturb wildlife, such 

as nesting raptors. Hand line construction would 

remove and disturb soil and forest litter, possibly 

affecting animals such as small mammals, 

amphibians, invertebrates, and ground-nesting birds. 

The presence of hand line crews in remote locations 

could cause direct disturbance of some wildlife 

species and introduce unnatural food sources. 

Removal of forest litter and live vegetation can also 

lead to soil erosion and increased siltation in adjacent 

lakes and streams. These suppression related impacts 

are, when looking at the "big picture", short-term and 

overall insignificant. Any fire suppression action that 

requires the felling of snags to protect human safety 

and the integrity of the fire line would potentially 

affect wildlife by reducing the availability of snags to 

species such as woodpeckers, squirrels, or some bat 

species. The number of snags lost would vary, 

depending upon factors such as the type and age of 

tree stand, its history of fire and/or disease or insect 

infestation, and the intensity of the fire. Direct and 

indirect impacts from most of these fire suppression 

techniques would be short-term, temporary, and 

localized, particularly if sensitive habitats (e.g.,

raptor nests, riparian areas) are avoided to the extent 

possible and rehabilitation of fire lines are completed. 

However, suppression actions in the arid desertscrub 

communities may be longer term or more intense, 

since these vegetation communities have much 

longer recovery periods from activities that highly 

disturb the soils or vegetation, thereby having a 

longer term effect on the wildlife species that inhabit 

them.

 

Direct effects from mortality or displacement of 

individuals and from loss of key habitat components 

and indirect effects from long-term changes in habitat 

composition or quality would be more widespread 

and intense in a greater variety of habitat types under 

the No-Action Alternative compared to the Proposed 

Action. Because of the higher risk of wildfire and its 

potential greater severity, impacts from fire 

suppression activities are also more likely to occur 

under the No-Action Alternative than under the 

Proposed Action.

4.8.2 Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts: 

Under the Proposed Action, BLM-administered lands 

would be assigned to one of four fire management 

categories, based on the wildfire threat to human life 

and property and the historic fire regime (fire return 

interval or fire-adaptability of vegetation). Under the 

Proposed Action, BLM would use a variety of 

treatments and fire management activities to reduce 

hazardous wildland fire fuels in the WUI and to 

improve rangeland and forest health in fire-adapted 

and fire-threatened vegetation communities. The 
4-16 

degree of fire suppression would vary among the four 

categories. In general, BLM would implement the 

proposed new fire management actions and 

treatments in habitats that are fire-adapted or firethreatened; habitats that are not fire-adapted or have 

long fire-return intervals would continue to be 

managed with aggressive fire suppression. In 

addition, as the Desired Future Conditions are 

achieved in various locations, BLM may change the 

fire management category for a particular site. For 

purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that 

implementation of the Proposed Action, including 

achieving wildfire and other resource objectives 

through a variety of fire management activities, 

would be accomplished over the next 15-20 years.

The various treatments and fire management actions 

under the Proposed Action would have a variety of 

direct effects on the resident fish and wildlife species. 

Adverse impacts would be decreased for some 

species if the timing of the prescribed fire or 

vegetation treatment avoids critical seasons, such as 

reproductive periods, when the loss of cover would 

be critical to wildlife or fish; for example, the bird 

nesting season or prior to wet weather conditions that 

may increase runoff into aquatic habitats.

Fish and wildlife species occupying particular sites 

would experience repeated direct effects from the 

various treatments, particularly prescribed fire and 

mechanical or manual treatments, since these fire 

management activities would need to be repeated 

periodically to maintain reduced fuel loads or retain 

particular resource objectives or conditions. 

However, as the Desired Future Conditions of a site 

are achieved, the intensity and scope of these effects 

would be reduced, as habitat conditions are restored 

or fuel loads are minimized and stabilized.

Catastrophic Wildfires. Under the Proposed Action, 

the risk and scope of the direct effects to fish and 

wildlife from catastrophic wildfires would be 

substantially reduced compared to the No-Action 

Alternative. The appropriate management response 

to wildfires and the treatment activities to reduce 

wildfire fuel loads in both allocations would reduce 

the severity and size of catastrophic wildfires in a 

variety of habitats and vegetation communities. 

Fewer and less severe catastrophic wildfires would 

reduce mortality and loss of key habitat components, 

and retain a greater percentage of unburned habitats 

for refuge and recolonization of burned habitats by 

various wildlife species and for reduced 

sedimentation into aquatic habitats.

Managed Wildfire. Under the Proposed Action, the 

average annual number of acres burned by managed 

wildfires would increase in allocation 1, ìAreas 

suitable for wildland fire use for resource benefitî. 

Conditions for wildland fires would vary among 

years, with little burning occurring in some years, 

and much burning occurring in others.

Wildlife and fish species occupying the fire-adapted 

communities (and their associated waterways) on 

BLM-administered lands in Arizona would be most 

directly affected by managing naturally-ignited fires 

under the Proposed Action. Because natural ignitions 

are random events, areas burned would not 

necessarily be those of highest management priority. 

Also, some areas would likely burn at higher than 

natural intensities due to current levels of fuel 

accumulation, even when prescriptions were 

designed to minimize these effects. As a result, 

consumption of large woody debris (which provides 

habitat diversity) and removal of shrub cover would 

be greater than typically found within the natural 

range of variation for an area, while creation of 

habitat mosaics would be less than typical. Loss or 

alteration of these habitat components would directly 

affect species that favor dense habitat types; for 

example, shrews, brown creepers, or tiger 

salamanders in forested habitats, or bird species that 

prefer heavy shrub cover in chaparral habitats. 

Wildlife species would experience direct mortality or 

displacement from these managed wildfires, 

particularly in years of extensive burning or higherintensity burns before fuel loads are reduced. In 

addition, fish species occupying waterways within 

these habitat types could be subjected to the direct 

effects of increased sedimentation and water 

temperatures from removal of upland vegetation. As 

with catastrophic fires, the duration, intensity, and 

scope of these direct effects to wildlife and fish 

depends on the species and the characteristics of the 

fire. In years of high wildland fire activity, large 

areas of habitat would likely be affected, changing 

their suitability for species favored under the altered 

habitat conditions created by a history of fire 

suppression. Some species occupying burn sites 

would show an initial decline in populations 

immediately following a fire, but would recover 

quickly with early successional recovery of the 

habitat or recolonization of the burned site (Smith 

2000, Cunningham et al. 2001). Other species would 

exhibit long-term changes in populations or 

community assemblages if key habitat components 

are slow to recover or are targeted for permanent 

change in structure or composition by BLM fire 

management or resource objectives.

Direct effects to fish and wildlife resources from 

managed wildfires would be greater under the 

Proposed Action, compared to the No-Action 
4-17 

Alternative, since more areas would be allowed to 

burn rather than be aggressively suppressed. 

However, these direct effects under the Proposed 

Action would still be less than the direct effects to 

fish and wildlife habitat and populations from the 

higher risk of catastrophic fires that would continue 

under the No-Action Alternative.

Because fire suppression would continue as a primary 

fire management activity in non-fire adapted habitats, 

fish and wildlife species occupying these habitats 

would not experience direct impacts from 

appropriately managed wildfires.

Prescribed Fire. The use of prescribed fire would 

selectively be used in allocation 1, ìAreas suitable for 

wildland fire use for resource benefitî. Areas 

furthest from the natural fire regime, with identified 

threats to wildlife populations and habitats, could be 

targeted for treatment. Prescribed fires would be 

planned to occur under conditions that maximize 

achievement of resource objectives, including 

rehabilitation of wildlife and fish habitat, and 

minimize fire-related impacts to sensitive wildlife 

resources (e.g., nesting raptors or priority big game 

species).

Killing vertebrates by prescribed burning is rare 

(Lyon et al. 1978). However, high levels of fuel 

loading in some sites would cause some prescribed 

fires to burn at higher than natural intensities, even 

when fire prescriptions were designed to minimize 

these effects. Conditions for prescribed fires would 

also vary among years, with little burning occurring 

in some years, and much burning occurring in others. 

As a result, direct effects to fish and wildlife 

resources from prescribed fires under these more 

intense conditions would be similar to those 

described for management of naturally-ignited fires. 

In addition, escaped prescribed burns could 

accidentally destroy riparian habitats and impact 

aquatic resources, causing losses of wildlife and fish 

through exposure, total loss of habitat, and through 

increased sedimentation of aquatic habitat from 

unchecked overland flow and destabilized stream 

channels.

Burning outside the typical fire season would 

minimize the direct effects of mortality, harassment, 

and displacement of some wildlife and fish species 

by avoiding critical nesting or breeding seasons or 

reducing the intensity of the fire and subsequent loss 

of key habitat components. However, some species 

that are adapted to the natural timing of fires may 

experience greater effects if they are unable to escape 

the burn or, if displaced, find adequate habitat 

resources (e.g., food, shelter) during colder or wetter 

times of the year (Smith 2000, Esque et al. 2003).

In addition to reducing wildfire fuel loads and 

restoring vegetation communities, BLM would use 

prescribed fires to improve habitat components for 

big game and other wildlife species. Prescribed fires 

would change forage quality and quantity, intersperse 

new feeding areas with areas providing cover, and/or 

rejuvenate decadent browse plants for some priority 

wildlife species. For example, an important factor in 

the degree of use of burned juniper habitats by deer 

and elk is the interspersion of burned habitats, which 

provide food, and unburned sites, which provide 

thermal and hiding cover (Smith 2000). 

If prescribed fire is used in fire-threatened, but nonfire adapted communities, such as Sonoran and 

Mojave Desertscrub, the effects to resident wildlife 

species would be highly variable, and management of 

the fire (including determining if or when to 

implement prescribed fire, as well as managing the 

prescribed fire itself) would be essential in 

ascertaining the direct effects to these populations. In 

these arid environments, use of plants that provide 

thermal cover, nurse-plants for plant reestablishment, and plants that provide cover from 

predators would all be directly affected by prescribed 

fire, thereby affecting the wildlife species that use 

them (Esque et al. 2003).

Fire Suppression Actions. Maintaining control of 

managed wildland fires and prescribed fires would 

involve fire suppression actions such as hand line 

construction, snag removal, and water drops. As 

described under the No-Action Alternative, some 

direct effects to fish and wildlife resources would 

occur from these wildfire management actions 

because of the increased use of managed wildfire and 

prescribed fire under the Proposed Action compared 

to the No-Action Alternative. However, such efforts 

are necessary and likely to be less intense than they 

would be during fire suppression activities associated 

with the current policy to aggressively suppress all 

wildfires or with suppression of catastrophic 

wildfires.

Manual Vegetation Treatment. Manual vegetation 

treatments involve the use of hand-operated power 

tools and hand tools to cut, clear, or prune herbaceous 

and woody plant species to reduce wildland fire fuel 

loads. This method is labor intensive, but can be 

extremely species selective and can be used in areas 

of sensitive fish or wildlife habitats, such as riparian 

habitats. This method would be used on sites where 

fire (prescribed or naturally ignited) is undesirable or 

where significant constraints prevent widespread use 

of fire as a management tool. These sites comprise a 
4-18 

range of vegetation communities or habitat types, and 

include areas where there may be wildlife concerns, 

yet it is deemed beneficial to remove trees, shrubs, or 

other fuel loading vegetation. Manual vegetation 

treatments cause less ground disturbance and 

generally remove fewer amounts of vegetation than is 

associated with other treatment methods (prescribed 

fire or mechanical treatments). Thus, direct impacts 

to wildlife species, such as mortality, displacement, 

or loss of key habitat components, from this 

treatment method would be minimal and short-term 

for most species. This method would also minimize 

direct effects to fish species, since retention of more 

vegetation would reduce the likelihood of decreased 

bank stability, increased sedimentation, and increased 

water temperatures.

Mechanical Vegetation Treatment. Heavy 

equipment would be used where critical fuel 

conditions demand immediate, efficient action, and 

where natural resources can acceptably withstand the 

impacts associated with this method. This method 

would include a range of vegetation communities, 

primarily habitats with dense shrub or woody 

components. Feller-bunchers, and other tracked or 

wheeled vehicles in these habitat types would create 

ground disturbance that would directly affect grounddwelling animals, including salamanders, reptiles, 

and small mammals that occupy forest litter or lowgrowing shrubs. Adjacent habitats would remain 

unaffected, allowing recolonization. The noise of 

heavy machinery would cause some short-term 

disturbance of wildlife in treatment sites, and in 

adjacent areas.

Biological Vegetation Treatment. Biological 

methods of vegetation treatment employing grazing 

by cattle, sheep, or goats would be used as biological 

control methods to reduce fuel loads on sites within 

both allocations. This method is extremely selective 

in controlling a target plant species; however, only a 

few plant species can be controlled in this manner. 

Typically biological control methods would not 

eradicate the target plant species, but merely reduce 

the target plant densities to more tolerable levels. 

Direct impacts on fish and wildlife species would be 

short-term and minimal, since direct mortality is 

unlikely, changes to habitat components would be 

gradual and targeted, and sufficient habitat would be 

retained for displacement and recolonization.

Chemical Vegetation Treatment. Chemical 

herbicides would be applied to reduce fuel loads in a 

variety of habitat types. Chemicals would be applied 

aerially with helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft, or on 

the ground using vehicles or manual application 

devices. Herbicide applications would be scheduled 

and designed to minimize potential effects to nontarget plants, as well as fish and wildlife species. The 

chemical drops could inadvertently strike some 

terrestrial animals or aquatic habitats, resulting in 

injury or chemical contamination to wildlife and fish. 

The low-flying aircraft could also disturb some 

wildlife. Direct impacts to fish and wildlife species 

would be short-term, localized, and minimal, since 

direct mortality is unlikely, sufficient habitat would 

be retained for displacement and recolonization by 

wildlife species, and most aquatic habitats would be 

buffered from the chemical application.

Under the Proposed Action, the combination of 

appropriately managing wildfires, and reducing fuel 

loads or restoring historic fire regimes through 

prescribed fire, and mechanical, chemical, and 

biological vegetation treatment methods, would 

indirectly affect wildlife habitat and populations in 

the long-term by restoring wildlife habitats and 

reducing the threat of catastrophic fires in a variety of 

habitats managed by BLM in Arizona. Managed 

wildfires or treatments would increase species 

diversity and ecosystem resiliency by restoring 

habitat heterogeneity and lost or degraded habitats for 

indigenous species.

Managed wildland fire and prescribed fire would be 

valuable tools in restoring natural, fire-influenced 

wildlife habitat. In more arid habitats, the indirect 

effects from using prescribed fire to reduce nonnative plant species would need to be carefully 

balanced with the direct effects of the fire itself 

(Esque 2003). Applying a diversity of treatment 

types both within particular vegetation communities 

and among the variety of BLM-managed lands, as 

proposed in this alternative, would provide for a 

range of variability in habitat types, including density 

and composition of vegetation, structural 

components, and course woody debris. Using the 

variety of proposed fire management actions to 

restore riparian or desertscrub habitats, and 

continuing aggressive fire suppression tactics, would 

improve vegetation composition and structure and 

reduce the amount of habitat lost or degraded by 

wildfires in these non-fire adapted habitats.

These long-term changes in vegetation would affect 

the species composition of wildlife occupying 

habitats on public lands in Arizona. For example, in 

the few BLM-administered forested habitats, fire 

management activities under the Proposed Action 

that create a more open forested environment (i.e., 

less understory vegetation) and remove down wood 

or snags would alter important habitat components 

for wildlife species that depend upon this type of 

dense, habitat complexity, such as salamanders, 
4-19 

lizards, small mammals, and ground-nesting birds. 

The overall conditions achieved, however, would 

benefit a larger number of species by restoring a 

forest structure that is within the range of natural 

variability for this fire-influenced vegetation 

community, with gaps and edge communities 

interspersed among the forest habitat. In juniper 

sites, complete type conversion to grassland using 

fire management activities would reduce wildlife 

diversity; however, creating a mosaic of successional 

stages and habitat composition, structure, and 

complexity with managed wildfire, prescribed 

burning, or mechanical treatments would favor a 

diversity of rodent and bird species, as well as 

providing restored browse species interspersed with 

cover sites for deer, elk, and other game species 

(Smith 2000). Old growth juniper stands may offer 

unique and valuable wildlife habitats, adding to the 

variety within juniper stands. Appropriately 

managing wildfire and using a variety of site-specific 

treatments would allow BLM to increase, restore, or 

maintain habitat and species diversity in the longterm by retaining old-growth juniper communities as 

islands and edge communities to the treated areas. In 

the arid desertscrub communities, using various 

treatments to reduce non-native grasses, such as red 

brome and buffelgrass, would reduce the occurrence 

of unnaturally severe wildfires that currently 

threatens the biotic diversity in these habitats (Esque 

et al. 2003).

Using a variety of fire management techniques that 

vary in their intensity and length of time for 

application and effectiveness would also assist in 

maintaining a range of variability of habitats. 

Methods that are less intensive (e.g., manual 

treatments), highly specific (e.g., chemical or 

biological treatments) or take a long time for 

effective reduction in fuel loading (biological 

treatments) may delay achievement of target habitat

conditions in some areas, and limit the amount of 

vegetation removed. Such management would have 

different effects on wildlife. On one hand, delay in 

achieving target conditions would allow altered 

habitat conditions to continue and extend the threat of

high-intensity fire in those areas. On the other, 

retention of more vegetation in treatment areas would 

favor species that prefer denser habitats. Conversely, 

treatment methods that provide quicker, more 

intensive, or widespread changes, such as managed

wildfire, prescribed fire, or mechanical removal of 

hazardous fuels, may result in a more rapid return of 

habitat types to a more natural condition, with a 

corresponding more rapid, long-term return of the 

wildlife community to historic species composition. 

With all treatment types, reducing the risk of 

catastrophic wildfires would allow wildlife species 

and communities to move among and adapt to the 

altering habitat conditions accomplished by the fire 

treatment methods. Using a full range of fuelreduction techniques would allow flexibility in 

achieving habitat rehabilitation goals while 

minimizing adverse impacts to fish and wildlife 

species.

The National Fire Plan applies to the U.S. Forest 

Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, all of 

which manage federal land in Arizona. These 

agencies are also mandated to take the necessary 

measures to reduce the occurrence of catastrophic 

wildfire through the management of hazardous fuels. 

As the Federal agencies, including BLM, implement 

fire management activities (both wildfire suppression 

and treatment activities to reduce wildfire fuels) on 

the ground, the frequency and location of effects to 

fish and wildlife populations and habitats increase 

across the landscape. Because high-mobility wildlife 

populations do not recognize administrative 

boundaries, many species use or move through 

habitats on a variety of federal, state, and private 

lands. In the short-term (0-3 years), fire management 

activities in habitats proposed for intensive fuels 

reduction treatments (prescribe fire or mechanical, 

chemical, or biological treatments) would need to be 

coordinated among the Federal agencies, in 

cooperation with the state wildlife agency, to reduce 

the combined effects of mortality or displacement of 

species or altering large acreages of habitats on 

various Federally administered lands. Maintaining a 

mosaic of habitats across the landscape and across 

administrative boundaries would minimize any 

cumulative effects to fish and wildlife resources. In 

the long-term (4-10 years), the overall improvement 

in structure, composition, and productivity in 

vegetation communities on all Federally administered 

lands within Arizona would improve the habitat 

quality and quantity (food, shelter, water, 

nesting/denning sites, etc.) and habitat variability for 

fish and wildlife species across the landscape. The 

overall reduction in catastrophic wildfires on all 

Federal lands within Arizona would also reduce the 

chance for large-scale direct losses of fish and 

wildlife populations and habitat within the state, 

increasing the chances for populations of some 

species to stabilize, and increasing ecosystem 

resiliency against other types of habitat disturbance 

(e.g., human population expansion and associated 

infrastructure development on private lands, 

particularly those adjoining BLM-administered or 

other federal lands).
4-20 

4.9 Special Status Plant and 

Wildlife Species 

The purpose of this section is to identify and predict 

the likely outcomes for no new impacts to special 

status species and critical habitats associated with 

BLM fire management alternatives. The following 

discussion presents a comparison of the scope and 

type of effects that would be expected under the NoAction Alternative and the Proposed Action 

Alternative. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

are discussed generally, and the actual range of 

impacts would vary among the special status species 

and habitat types.

4.9.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, BLM would 

continue to suppress all wildfires, regardless of 

ignition source or vegetation type, in accordance with 

current LUP and Fire Management Plan direction. 

Continuing fire management under this alternative 

would result in no new impacts to special status 

species and their habitats. Effects to special status 

wildlife, fish, and plant species from the No-Action 

Alternative would be similar to those described for 

Vegetation Resources (Section 4.4) and Fish and 

Wildlife Resources (Section 4.8).

Some special status species would benefit from 

continued aggressive fire suppression activities that 

minimize loss of individuals, populations, key habitat 

components, or critical habitats, particularly in 

habitats that are fire-threatened but not fire-adapted 

(e.g., desertscrub or riparian habitats). Conversely, 

fire suppression activities can also affect special 

status species through mortality, disturbance, or 

displacement; and removal, damage, or alteration of 

key habitat components. Currently, fire suppression 

operations that occur on BLM-administered lands in 

or near sites occupied by Federally protected species, 

or designated or proposed critical habitat, require 

emergency consultation or conference to comply with 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as 

amended. The need for Emergency Consultations 

would continue under the No-Action Alternative.

The long-term alterations in habitats and increased 

risk of catastrophic fires under the No-Action 

Alternative would also increase the risk to speciesí 

viability from large-scale losses of populations or 

habitat. This risk is particularly high for the small 

and/or disjunct populations or ranges of many special 

status species, which are more vulnerable to 

catastrophic events. Both direct and indirect effects 

to special status species from implementing the NoAction Alternative would be widespread, intense, and 

long-term or permanent compared to the Proposed 

Action Alternative.

4.9.2 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would utilize appropriately 

managed wildfire, prescribed fire, mechanical, 

biological, and chemical fuels treatments, combined 

with fire suppression and rehabilitation, in order to 

achieve desired future conditions. Site-specific 

assessments would determine if and when fire 

suppression operations or the proposed fire 

management activities would be appropriate 

management tools in sites or habitats occupied by, 

suitable for, or adjacent to special status species.

This section conveys general, potential effects to 

special status species from implementing fire 

suppression and the proposed fire management 

activities under the proposed action. The duration, 

intensity, and scope of effects to special status 

species and their critical habitats depend on the 

species and the characteristics of the activity. 

General and species-specific Conservation Measures 

(Appendix D) would be implemented to the extent 

possible during fire suppression operations and 

would be mandatory during fuels treatment activities 

to minimize effects to the species.

A Biological Evaluation (BE) was prepared that 

contains detailed analyses of all federally listed 

(endangered or threatened), proposed, and candidate 

species (herein referred to as ìFederally protectedî 

species), and designated or proposed critical habitat 

that may be affected by the proposed action. It 

includes analyses of all direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects, as well as any interrelated and 

interdependent actions, of the Proposed Action, 

including fire suppression operations. The 

comprehensive analysis of fire suppression activities 

in the BE, combined with implementing 

Conservation Measures, would result in greater 

consistency statewide for managing Federally 

protected species, as well as minimizing or 

eliminating the need for future emergency 

consultations when fire suppression activities occur 

within the range of these species or their critical 

habitats.

The species-specific analyses within the BE for this 

project are incorporated here by reference. 

Appendix H provides a summary of the BE. Table 

4.7 provides a summary of the effects determination 

for each Federally protected species within the action 

area. Based on discussions and analyses during 

informal consultation, determinations were made that 
4-21 

Table 4.7 ñ Summary of effects for protected species in Arizona considered in the Biological 

Evaluation for the proposed action.

Common Name Federal 

Statusa

ESA Species 

Determinationsb

ESA Critical Habitat 

Determinations

Amphibians

Chiricahua leopard frog FT LAA n/a

Relict leopard frog FC NLAA n/a

Birds

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl FE, PCH LAA LAA

California brown pelican FE NLAA n/a

California condor FE, 10(j)c LAA n/a

Masked bobwhite FE NLAA n/a

Northern aplomado falcon FE NLAA n/a

Southwestern willow flycatcher FE LAA n/a

Yuma clapper rail FE LAA n/a

Bald eagle FT LAA n/a

Mexican spotted owl FT, CH LAA LAA

Yellow-billed cuckoo FC LAA n/a

Fish

Bonytail chub FE, CH NLAA NLAA

Desert pupfish FE, CH LAA NE

Gila topminnow FE LAA n/a

Razorback sucker FE, CH LAA LAA

Virgin River chub FE, CH LAA LAA

Woundfin FE, CH 10(j)d LAA LAA

Yaqui chub FE, CH LAA NLAA

Yaqui topminnow FE LAA n/a

Beautiful shiner FT, CH NLAA NLAA

Little Colorado spinedace FT, CH LAA LAA

Loach minnow FT, CH LAA LAA

Spikedace FT, CH LAA LAA

Yaqui catfish FT, CH NLAA NLAA

Gila chub PE, PCH LAA LAA

Flowering Plants

Arizona cliffrose FE LAA n/a

Brady pincushion cactus FE LAA n/a

Holmgren (Paradox) milk vetch FE LAA n/a

Huachuca water umbel FE, CH LAA LAA

Kearneyís blue-star FE LAA n/a

Nichol Turkís head cactus FE LAA n/a

Peebles Navajo cactus FE LAA n/a

Pima pineapple cactus FE LAA n/a

Jones cycladenia FT LAA n/a
4-22 

Common Name Federal 

Statusa

ESA Species 

Determinationsb

ESA Critical Habitat 

Determinations

Siler pincushion cactus FT LAA n/a

Acuna cactus FC LAA n/a

Fickeisen plains cactus FC LAA n/a

Mammals

Black-footed ferret FE, 10(j) NLAA n/a

Hualapai Mexican vole FE LAA n/a

Jaguar FE NLAA n/a

Lesser long-nosed bat FE NLAA n/a

Mexican gray wolf FE, 10(j) NLAA n/a

Ocelot FE NLAA n/a

Sonoran pronghorn FE NLAA n/a

Black-tailed prairie dog FC NLAA n/a

Reptiles

Desert tortoise, Mojave population FT, CH LAA LAA

New Mexico ridgenose rattlesnake FT LAA n/a a Federal status designations are Endangered (FE), Threatened (FT), Proposed Endangered (PE), Proposed Threatened (PT), Federal Candidate 

(FC), Designated Critical Habitat (CH), Proposed Critical Habitat (PCH). b Determinations for Federally listed (endangered or threatened), proposed, and candidate species and designated or proposed critical habitat are: 

1) no effect (NE); 2) may affect, is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA); and 3) may affect, is likely to adversely affect (LAA). c Species listed as ì10(j)î are designated experimental/non -essential populations under Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. 

This designation provides greater management flexibility. For BLM, 10(j) populations of Federally listed species are equivalent to a ìproposedî 

status.

d In addition to the full protection of this listed species under the ESA, experimental/non-essential (10(j)) populations have been designated, but 

not yet re-introduced, into designated sites outside its historic range.

the proposed action would have no effect on 25 

species within the action area of the project (see 

Appendix B of the BE).

Direct Impacts of Proposed Action:

Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Direct effects to special status wildlife species from 

fire suppression and the proposed fire management 

activities would be similar to those described in the 

Environmental Consequences for Fish and Wildlife 

Resources (Section 4.8). These effects would 

include, but are not limited to:

• Mortality or injury of adults, young, or eggs 

from smoke inhalation or crushing by 

vehicles or equipments used during fire 

management operations.

• Disturbance or displacement of individuals 

from smoke, noise, and other human 

activities associated with the operations, 

affecting foraging, roosting, or reproductive 

behavior.

• Nest abandonment or mortality of young, 

resulting in the loss of one yearís 

recruitment.

• Loss of key habitat components for nesting, 

foraging, roosting, or cover.

Fish and Other Aquatic Species

Direct effects to special status fish and aquatic 

species from fire suppression and the proposed fire 

management activities would be similar to those 

described in the Environmental Consequences for 

Fish and Wildlife Resources (Section 4.8). These 

effects would include, but are not limited to:

• Mortality of adults, young, or larvae from 

using occupied water sources during fire 

suppression or proposed fire management 

activities.

• Loss of habitat (water quantity) from 

dewatering during low flow periods.
4-23 

• Spread of disease or non-native, predatory 

species (e.g., bullfrogs) among different 

water sources.

• Chemical contamination of individuals or 

aquatic habitats from fire retardant drops or 

herbicide applications.

• Damage or loss of riparian or upland 

vegetation, resulting in:

o decreased channel stability and 

alteration of channel morphology;

o increased erosion and sediment and 

ash levels within and adjacent to 

the stream channel;

o increased water temperature;

o degraded water quality (nutrient, 

temperature, and sediment levels);

o reduced riparian and instream 

habitat cover and woody debris 

necessary for properly functioning 

riparian areas and aquatic habitat;

o altered water velocities and 

substrate composition; and

o decreased and altered composition 

and abundance of aquatic and 

terrestrial food sources.

Plant Species

Direct effects to special status plant species would 

include, but are not limited to:

• Heat stress from prescribed fire or 

suppressed wildfire

• Mortality from prescribed fire or suppressed

wildfire

• Crushing from use of vehicles during 

treatments

• Crushing from human foot traffic in 

treatment areas

• Accidental crushing during mechanical 

treatments/piling of slash

• Accidental removal during mechanical 

treatments

• Stress or mortality to non-target organism 

during chemical treatments

• Stress or mortality to non-target organism 

during biological treatments

• Damage to the seedbank due to fire severity 

or mechanical disruption 

Indirect Impacts of Proposed Action:

In addition to the indirect effects described below, 

some special status species may experience 

interdependent effects from aggressive fire 

suppression actions that minimize the amount of 

riparian or upland vegetation lost from catastrophic 

wildfires, as well as interrelated effects from posttreatment activities that quickly restore riparian and 

upland vegetation. These effects would be similar to 

the No-Action Alternative. 

Implementation of the proposed fire management 

actions to reduce fuel loads and improve forest and 

range conditions over the long-term would also 

reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires on riparian 

and upland habitats that are within or adjacent to 

special status species and their critical habitats. This 

would reduce the large-scale loss of populations, and 

occupied, suitable, or critical habitat, resulting from 

these severe wildfires.

Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Indirect effects to special status wildlife species from 

fire suppression and the proposed fire management 

activities would be similar to those described in the 

Environmental Consequences for Fish and Wildlife 

Resources (Section 4.8). These effects would 

include, but are not limited to:

• Increased risk of predation from removal of 

cover.

• Changes in food quality and quantity or 

foraging habitats.

• Long-term changes in habitat quality or 

quantity for nesting, roosting, foraging, or 

cover, affecting the ability of a species to 

continue occupying a site, or facilitating the 

return of a species to its historic range.

Fish and Aquatic Species

Indirect effects to special status fish and aquatic 

species and their habitat typically include degradation 

and alteration of hydrologic processes, functions, and 

watershed conditions, such as decreased water quality 

and quantity, increased soil erosion and compaction, 

alteration of overland and stream sedimentation rates. 

These effects would result in similar impacts as the 

direct effects, but are typically later in time or longterm, creating chronic adverse effects to fish species 

and their habitats.

In the Southwest, the fire season starts around March 

and ends around the end of June. This fire season is 

immediately followed by the summer monsoon 

season of July to August. Consequently, watersheds 

occupied by or upstream from special status fish 

species or critical habitats in which fire suppression 

activities have impacted riparian or terrestrial 

vegetation would potentially be followed by localized 

heavy precipitation and runoff into streams.
4-24 

Plant Species

Indirect effects to special status plant species would 

include, but are not limited to:

• Soil erosion within the area of its habitat 

following prescribed fire or suppressed 

wildfire 

• Change in vegetative composition in the 

habitat from management of fire, or 

mechanical/biological/chemical treatments

• Change in vegetative structure in the habitat 

from management of fire, or 

mechanical/biological/chemical treatments

• Increase in invasive species in the habitat 

which may outcompete this species due to 

management of fire, or 

mechanical/biological/chemical treatments

Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action:

Cumulative impacts to special status wildlife, fish, 

and plant species include the past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions or management 

strategies that, when taken together, result in the 

gradual loss of individuals or populations of special 

status species. Cumulative effects to special status 

species under the proposed action would include, but 

are not limited to, the following broad types of 

impacts:

• Changes in land use patterns or practices 

that adversely affect a speciesí habitat or 

potential habitat.

• Encroachment of human development into a 

species habitat or potential habitat.

• Fire management actions by some, or all, of 

the following groups, on lands adjoining or 

upstream of BLM-administered lands:

o United States Forest Service

o National Park Service

o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

o Bureau of Reclamation

o Tribal Governments

o State of Arizona 

o County Governments in Arizona

o Local Governments in Arizona

As fire management and habitat rehabilitation 

activities are implemented on Federal lands in 

Arizona over the long-term, a range of variability in 

upland and riparian habitats would be retained across 

the state, variously affecting special status species 

and their critical habitat. In the short-term (0-3 

years), fuels reduction or rehabilitation activities in 

riparian and upland habitats would need to be 

coordinated among the Federal agencies to minimize 

any cumulative effects on special status species and 

critical habitats. In the long-term (4-10 years), the 

overall improvement in terrestrial and riparian 

habitats and reduction in catastrophic wildfires on 

Federally administered lands within Arizona would 

reduce the chance for large-scale direct losses of the 

various special status species and critical habitats 

within the state.

Declines in the abundance or range of many special 

status species have been attributed to various human 

activities on Federal, state, and private lands, such as 

human population expansion and associated 

infrastructure development; construction and 

operation of dams along major waterways; recreation, 

including off-road vehicle activity; and grazing. 

Many of these activities are expected to continue 

within the range of the various special status wildlife, 

fish, and plant species. Improvements in riparian and 

upslope habitats within or adjacent to sites occupied 

by special status species or critical habitats on 

Federal lands in Arizona through fire management or 

other rehabilitation activities, as well as aggressive 

ire suppression when necessary, would increase the 

chances for populations of some special status 

species to stabilize, particularly in areas with 

checker-boarded land ownership patterns. These 

improvements would potentially increase the 

resiliency of some watersheds and populations of 

special status species against other human-caused 

threats to a speciesí viability.

4.9.3 Federal Species of Concern 

(Conservation Agreement 

Species and Management Plan 

Species)

In addition to the general effects described above, 

and the species-specific analyses for Federally 

protected species found in the BE, the proposed 

action may affect four species that are considered 

Federal Species of Concern and are managed under 

Conservation Agreements or Management Plans that 

the BLM participates in. The following analysis 

discusses the potential effects to these species.

Flat-tailed Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii) 

Federal Species of Concern (Conservation 

Agreement)

The current range of the flat-tailed horned lizard 

includes the extreme southwestern corner of Arizona, 

much of which has been converted to agriculture or is 

managed by the Department of Defense (Marine 

Corps). Only a few very small parcels of public 

lands occur within the speciesí range. The Lower 

Colorado River Valley subdivision of Sonoran 
4-25 

Desertscrub habitat, where the flat-tailed horned 

lizard currently resides, contains minimal vegetation. 

In Arizona, the lizard typically inhabits sandy flats 

where galleta grass is abundant. The proposed fire 

management actions would not be implemented in 

habitat within the speciesí range, as no vegetation 

would need to be thinned or removed to reduce 

hazardous fuel loads or restore range conditions. The 

sparse vegetation on BLM-administered lands within 

the horned lizardís range would not carry large, fastmoving, or severe catastrophic fires requiring 

aggressive suppression activities. Thus, the flattailed horned lizard would not experience any direct, 

indirect, or cumulative effects from implementing the 

proposed action on BLM-administered lands within 

the speciesí range. 

Kaibab (Paradine) Pincushion Cactus (Pediocactus 

paradinei), Federal Species of Concern (Conservation 

Agreement)

Kaibab pincushion cactus has a narrow range, but it 

spans four separate ecosystems, including Great 

Basin Desert Scrub, Great Basin PiÒon-Juniper 

Woodland, Great Basin Plains and Grassland, and 

Montane Conifer Forest. The historic fire regime in 

this area varied from low severity with a frequency of 

0-35 years, to stand replacement with a frequency of 

35-100+ years. The current condition mapping 

shows a classification of 2 to 3, with class 3 being a 

regime that significantly departs from the historic 

model. The proposed action would offer a variety of 

options for fuel treatments in these diverse ecosystem 

types. The grassland type would likely be treated 

with prescribed fire. The piÒon-juniper woodland 

could be treated with prescribed fire and mechanical 

thinning. The montane forest could be treated with 

both prescribed fire and mechanical thinning. The 

desert scrub would likely feature only mechanical 

thinning. The potential effects to the Kaibab 

pincushion cactus from this suite of treatments would 

include the possibility of fire stress, fire-induced 

mortality, and seedbank damage from prescribed fire, 

and accidental crushing/removal during mechanical 

treatment. Other possible treatments include wildfire 

suppression and management of natural wildfire 

starts for habitat benefit. Effects would potentially 

include fire stress, fire-induced mortality, and 

seedbank damage. The effects to this species from 

the proposed action would typically be short-term or 

localized.

In order to prevent adverse effects from prescribed 

fire, mechanical treatments, wildfire suppression, and 

management of natural wildfire starts for benefit in 

Kaibab pincushion cactus habitat, the following 

Conservation Measures are suggested:

• Survey probable treatment areas for this 

species prior to initiation of treatment

• Establish a site-specific and appropriate 

buffer around populations of this species

• Do not lop, scatter, or pile slash onto this 

species

• Keep vehicles on existing roads in treatment 

areas

• Prevent excessive foot traffic through 

Kaibab pincushion cactus habitat

• Reseed only with native species appropriate 

to these ecosystem types and monitor for 

invasive weed infestations

Virgin Spinedace (Lepidomeda mollinspinis 

mollinspinis), Federal Species of Concern 

(Conservation Agreement)

In Arizona, the tributaries of the Virgin River that 

support this species occur primarily on state and 

private lands, with some BLM-administered lands. 

However, most upland habitat surrounding these 

occupied reaches is managed by BLM. The Mojave 

desertscrub upland and riparian habitats within the 

range of the Virgin River chub are moderately to 

severely altered from their historic fire regime, 

putting them at higher risk for wildfires that are 

larger or more severe, intense, or frequent, and 

causing greater changes to or loss of the vegetation. 

This, in turn, puts the downstream or downslope 

aquatic habitats of the Virgin spinedace at greater 

risk to direct and indirect effects from wildfires, and, 

potentially, fire suppression and the proposed fire 

management activities. For most fire suppression 

efforts in the vicinity of Beaver Dam Wash, the 

Virgin River is the largest source of available water. 

The Virgin spinedace would experience direct and 

indirect effects from fire suppression actions and the 

proposed fire management actions on BLMadministered lands within its range as described in 

the general effects for fishes. Implementation of the 

Conservation Measures (Appendix D) for riparian 

and aquatic habitats and for the species would 

minimize any effects to the species from these 

actions.

Conversely, Virgin spinedace would experience the 

beneficial interdependent effects from aggressive fire 

suppression actions within the riparian and upslope 

terrestrial habitats surrounding the Virgin River 

tributaries, which would minimize the amount of 

vegetation lost from catastrophic wildfires. They 

would also experience beneficial interrelated effects 

from post-fire rehabilitation activities, which would 

restore riparian and terrestrial vegetation, and protect 

the fishís habitat.
4-26 

This fish species has been affected by other activities 

on federal, state, and private lands that have 

cumulatively contributed to its decline. Many of 

these activities, such as urbanization, water diversion 

and impoundment, degradation of water quality, and 

competition with introduced species (fish and 

crayfish), are expected to continue within the range 

of the species. Implementing a combination of the 

proposed fire management actions to reduce fuel 

loads and improve riparian and upslope terrestrial 

habitats, as possible, combined with aggressive fire 

suppression as necessary, would reduce the risk of 

catastrophic wildfires and provide long-term 

improvements in the Virgin River watershed 

(including its tributaries occupied by the Virgin 

spinedace). These improvements would potentially 

increase the resiliency of the watershed, as well as 

Virgin spinedace populations, against large-scale 

losses from wildfires as well as other activities that 

threaten the species viability. These actions would 

assist in implementing the Conservation Management 

Agreement to reduce threats to the species. 

Desert tortoise, Sonoran population [Gopherus 

agassizii (xerobates)], Federal Species of Concern 

(Management Plan)

Increases in invasive grass and shrub species have 

altered the Sonoran desertscrub habitats used by the 

Sonoran population of desert tortoises to a point 

where fires now carry in these habitats that are 

generally intolerant of fire or fire suppression 

activities. Wildfire can cause rapid and profound 

changes in desertscrub habitats, both in the shortterm and long-term, because many desert plants are 

not well adapted to large disturbances by fire (Esque 

et al. 2003). In addition, fires now burn hotter and 

farther in desertscrub habitats, reducing the natural 

mosaic pattern (patchy distribution of plants and open 

space) typical to these communities (Esque et al. 

2003).

In some instances, the proposed fire management 

actions would be used to restore and maintain 

habitats, to reduce accumulated hazardous fuels, and 

to reduce the chance of catastrophic fire. Sitespecific assessments would determine if and when 

these activities are appropriate in habitats occupied 

by desert tortoises. In general, aggressive fire 

suppression would continue to be the primary fire 

management activity within habitats for the Sonoran 

population of desert tortoises. The primary direct and 

indirect effects to these tortoises would be from fire 

suppression, prescribed fire, and mechanical 

vegetation treatments. Wildland fire use, biological 

and chemical treatments would not likely be used in 

desert tortoise habitat and, thus, would not affect the 

Sonoran population of tortoises.

Direct effects to tortoises from these activities would 

result from mortality or injury and degradation or 

loss of key habitat components (e.g., cover, forage). 

Tortoises could be disturbed, injured, or killed and 

burrows and clutches of eggs could be destroyed 

during construction of fire lines (using handlines or 

heavy equipment), campsites, and staging areas; offroad driving; or prescribed fires or backfires lit 

during fire suppression operations. These effects to 

tortoises would be more intense during periods of 

surface activity for tortoises (spring and early 

summer and post-monsoon in the fall), or when they 

are occupying shallow cover sites. With the 

exception of water, which is considered benign or 

beneficial for tortoises and tortoise habitat, the effects 

on desert tortoises of retardants used during fire 

suppression are unknown. Indirect effects to desert 

tortoises from the proposed action would result from 

increases in predation through attraction of predators 

to human-activity sites and increased exposure from 

loss of cover; disturbance, injury, mortality, or 

collection by OHV recreationists using roads and 

fires lines created during treatment or suppression 

activities; reduced forage quantity and quality; or 

long-term alterations, degradation, or loss of suitable 

habitat, particularly from fire suppression (backfires), 

appropriately managed wildfire, and prescribed fire.

Using the variety of proposed fire management 

actions, as appropriate and possible, to restore 

desertscrub habitats, and continuing aggressive fire 

suppression tactics, as necessary, would, in the longterm, improve vegetation composition and structure 

and reduce the amount of habitat lost or degraded by 

wildfires. The risk of catastrophic wildfires would be 

reduced, by reducing fuel loads, including non-native 

annual grasses that carry fires in desertscrub habitats. 

Because use of these fire management techniques 

would be selective and be implemented in phases, 

and because individual project sites would typically 

be small compared to the overall available habitat, a 

range of variability of tortoise habitat would be 

retained. The short-term direct loss of habitat in 

treated locations would be balanced with retention of 

current habitat conditions in nearby untreated sites, 

providing refuge and recolonization sources for 

desert tortoises. These long-term effects would 

potentially minimize any cumulative effects to the 

Sonoran population of desert tortoise from activities 

on Federal, state, and private lands, particularly 

where land ownership patterns are checker-boarded.

To minimize effects to the Sonoran population of 

desert tortoise from fire suppression and the proposed 
4-27 

fire management activities, similar Conservation 

Measures as for the Mojave population of the desert 

tortoise (Appendix C), including restrictions on 

timing and locations of activities, should be 

implemented as appropriate.

4.10 Cultural and 

Paleontological Resources

4.10.1 No-Action Alternative

4.10.1.1 Prehistoric/Historic Resources

Under the No-Action Alternative, wildland fire 

would continue to occur, with direct impacts 

resulting from fire intensity/duration, and from 

mechanical and/or chemical suppression activities. 

Direct impacts would include damage or destruction 

of prehistoric and historic sites and associated 

artifacts; destruction of organic materials such as 

bone, plant and animal fibers, and timber elements of 

historic structures; and destruction or chemical 

changes in materials used for dating archeological 

sites. A discussion of potential impacts relating to 

fire intensity and duration is provided in the 

discussion of direct impacts of prescribed burning 

provided below. Uncontrolled wildland fire would be 

expected to have more severe effects to prehistoric 

and historic resources than those of prescribed burns, 

where the intensity and duration of the fire is more 

controlled. Impacts from mechanical fire suppression 

activities would include potential destruction of 

artifacts and other materials, and the disturbance of 

site context and loss of scientific value of individual 

sites. Chemicals used for suppression of active 

wildland fire would not affect prehistoric/historic 

resources. 

4.10.1.2 Places of Traditional Cultural 

Importance

No places of traditional cultural importance were 

identified by Indian tribes during preparation of the 

LUP Amendment EA. See the discussion below for 

an assessment of potential impacts to such areas from 

prescribed burns (typically of lesser 

intensity/duration than wildland fire) and the use of 

mechanical equipment, such as would be utilized in 

wildland fire suppression.

4.10.1.3 Paleontological Resources

Under the No-Action Alternative, exposed fossil 

resources would continue to be subject to scorching 

or cracking by wildland fire, however, the impact of 

such fires on such resources has not been quantified. 

Organic materials (Pleistocene and later), such as the 

remains of bison and other large land mammals, 

would potentially be damaged or destroyed by 

wildland fire and mechanical suppression activities.

4.10.2 Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts:

Implementation of the amendment would lead to 

direct impacts from fire management activities. 

Potential direct impacts resulting from the anticipated 

treatments/processes would be as described below.

Impacts Relating to Prescribed Burning

Prehistoric Resources

Prehistoric resources potentially affected by 

prescribed burns may be inorganic (lithics, ceramics, 

etc.) or organic, and certain such resources may be of 

importance in the potential dating of archeological 

sites. It must be acknowledged that, in addition to 

the factors discussed below, the probability or 

evidence of previous wildland fire events is a 

significant factor in determining whether prescribed 

burning (or other treatment methods, for that matter) 

could cause a direct effect to prehistoric resources 

which may have been damaged by fire in the past.

Inorganic Resources. The effects of fire on 

archeological resources are dependent upon the fireís 

intensity, its duration, and the depth of heat 

penetration into the soil. For archeological purposes, 

the severity of a fire is measured by its intensity (low, 

moderate, or heavy). Fires would burn with 

increased duration and temperature in proportion to 

the accumulation of dry fuel on the ground. The 

depth of heat penetration is dependent upon factors 

such as soil type, moisture, and coarseness, and the 

abundance of dry fuel. For inorganic resources such 

as lithic tools, stone implements, and ceramics, fire 

may be expected to cause cracking and spalling, 

darkening of surfaces, and changes in chemical 

composition (for ceramic paints). Effects of fire 

would expect to be mitigated somewhat depending 

upon the depth of the resources below the surface. 

When fires remain below 500o C and occur within 

half an hour (as is typical for prescribed burns), little 

damage to artifacts and resources even at shallow 

depths is likely to occur (Pyne, 1996). 

For some rock art sites, such as localities with 

pictographs or petroglyphs, effects may range from 

darkening of the surface from soot, obscuring the 

image, to destruction caused by cracking or 
4-28 

breakdown of the chemical properties of the medium. 

Intaglios and rock alignments may be less affected 

due to the typically sparse vegetation in localities 

where they are present. 

Organic Resources. As expected, organic resources 

such as bone, hair, animal and vegetable fibers, and 

wood are extremely susceptible to fire, particularly in 

an arid climate. Even relatively low 

intensity/duration fires would likely destroy such 

materials occurring on the surface. The greater the 

depth of organic materials, the less likely they would 

be affected by fire.

Dating Resources. Radiocarbon dating of organic 

materials (such as charcoal or bone fragments) 

associated with archeological sites is a common 

procedure. The destruction of such material would 

adversely effect the ability to date such sites. In 

addition, exposure to high temperatures could cause 

chemical changes in organic material which would 

compromise the ability to accurately radiocarbon date 

such material.

Obsidian is a siliceous mineral found in numerous 

volcanic area around the world, often collected and 

traded in prehistoric times and used for artifact 

production (Delmonte 1985). Obsidian develops 

hydrated surface layers when exposed to moisture. 

Hydration rates vary, but 200 to 400 years per micron 

thickness of the hydrated layer is typical, and these 

rates are used to date the time elapsed from the 

exposure of the surface by lithic flaking techniques. 

Studies on the effects of prescribed burning on 

obsidian hydration bands have been conducted. As 

expected, temperature and duration of exposure are 

primary factors in the potential for damage to 

obsidian hydration bands. Laboratory analysis 

indicates that exposure to temperatures below 100o C 

(212o F) for less than 24 hours does not change 

hydration bands. It was noted that soil temperature 

during prescribed burns remain below 100o as long as 

moisture remains in the soil (Solomon, 2002). The 

precise relevance of laboratory experiments to actual 

prescribed burn situations has not been established. 

 

Historic Resources

Structures built of combustible materials, or 

containing combustible materials (such as timber 

elements of adobe structures) are highly susceptible 

to fire. Other materials, such as machinery utilized in 

historic mining operations, are less susceptible, 

depending upon the intensity and duration of the fire. 

Resources such as historic trails or mine shafts are 

unlikely to be directly affected by fire, although 

associated structures could be damaged or destroyed. 

Organic artifacts associated with historic properties 

and occurring on the ground surface could be 

destroyed, while such artifacts beneath the ground 

surface would likely be protected, depending upon 

the degree of soil heating.

Impacts Relating to Mechanical Treatment

Prehistoric Resources

Mechanical treatment involves the use of wheeled 

and crawler-type tractors with attached implements 

for clearance of undesired plants and fuel 

accumulations. Direct effects would be damage or 

destruction of archeological resources occurring on 

the surface and within the root zones of cleared 

vegetation, resulting in loss of site integrity and 

associated scientific values.

Historic Resources

Direct effects of mechanical treatment would be 

damage or destruction of historic resources including 

structural remains and associated materials occurring 

on the surface and within the root zones of cleared 

vegetation, resulting in loss of site integrity and 

associated scientific values.

Impacts Relating to Chemical Treatment

Prehistoric Resources

Intense ground disturbance would not result from 

chemical treatment options. Little information exists 

regarding the effect of chemical treatment methods 

on prehistoric (particularly organic) resources. 

Chemical treatments with an organic component 

might have the potential to affect 14C material used 

for site dating, however, such effects would be 

expected to diminish for subsurface material. 

Potential contamination of Carbon-14 samples would 

not preclude dating of archeological sites by other, 

contextual, methods (i.e. lithics, ceramics).

Historic Resources

Some long term fire retardants containing ammonium 

phosphate or ammonium sulfate can leave a white 

residue and attract water, potentially causing damage 

to wood, which may be present in historic structures. 

Discoloration of metallic surfaces may also occur. 

Foam detergents and surfactants (wetting agents), as 

well as water enhancers, used as fire retardants may 

also damage wood by causing swelling and 

contraction. 
4-29 

Impacts Relating to Biological Treatment

Prehistoric Resources

The use of biological treatments would have no direct 

effect to prehistoric archeological resources. In areas 

where surface artifacts or features occur, the use of 

grazing animals could cause damage as the animalsí 

hooves could displace or damage such resources. 

Historic Resources

No direct effect to historic structures would be 

anticipated as a result of biological treatment options. 

Fragile surface artifacts, such as glass or ceramics, 

associated with historic sites would be subject to 

damage by the hooves of grazing animals, although 

this would not appreciably affect the 

scientific/historic value of the site.

Impacts Relating to Manual Treatment

Prehistoric Resources

Direct effects relating to use of manual clearing of 

vegetation would be disturbance of archeological 

resources by displacing surface and subsurface 

material by pulling, grubbing or digging plant root 

systems. Such activity would compromise the 

scientific value of archeological sites to the degree 

that such activities disturbed the surrounding soil 

matrix. Effects would be related to the destruction 

or damage of artifacts by breaking or chipping, and to 

the scientific value of site context by shifting artifacts 

and disturbing the chronological sequence of 

deposition. Not to be neglected is the potential for 

illegal collection of artifacts by workers. It is noted 

that in vegetated areas, some level of disturbance to 

archeological resources would have been expected to 

occur, due to dislocation by plant growth and animal 

activity (such as burrowing).

Historic Resources

Direct effects to historic structures and structural 

remains by manual clearing activities would be 

minimal, and in some instances could be beneficial, 

as the growth of vegetation within or adjacent to 

structural remains tends to accelerate the 

disintegration process. Effects of manual clearing to 

artifacts associated with historic sites would be 

similar to those for prehistoric resources, as noted 

above. With the exception of areas such as trash pits, 

artifacts associated with historic resources in Arizona 

tend to occur at the surface or higher subsurface 

levels.

No indirect impacts to prehistoric or historic 

resources from the treatment methods described in 

Section 2.4 have been identified.

Changes in Federal wildland fire management policy 

are applicable to other Federal agencies in Arizona 

and would typically have similar potential impacts to 

cultural resources as described in this EA. These 

agencies would also be subject to the Section 106 

requirements referenced in the next section. The 

treatment methods described in Section 2.4 would be 

more aggressively pursued in areas where the risk of 

wildfire is considered to be higher than average, or 

where such wildfire is considered undesirable. The 

potential impacts from these methods would typically 

be less severe than those from an unmanaged wildfire 

event. It is therefore considered that - all other past, 

present, and foreseeable future land management 

actions in the state of Arizona being equal - the 

cumulative impacts from the proposed LUP 

Amendment, would be less severe to cultural 

resources than the No-Action Alternative.

All treatment actions with the potential to effect 

cultural resources are subject to the requirements of 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act, 36 CFR 800, and the BLM 8100 Manual series. 

Because many archeological sites may have been 

exposed to wildland fire in the past, sites identified 

during field surveys prior to prescribed burning or 

mechanical treatments will be evaluated to determine 

whether the sites have been damaged from wildland 

fire events, and to evaluate the potential effects of 

proposed treatment methods on such sites. As such, 

ground disturbing treatment methods described under 

the Proposed Action would require site-specific 

cultural resources evaluation, including examination 

of records of known sites and an intensive cultural 

resources inventory (Class III). Mitigation, usually in 

the form of avoidance, would be necessary if a 

determination was made that NRHP-eligible 

properties would be impacted by a proposed action. 

Should undocumented cultural resources be identified 

in the course of ground-disturbing treatment, the 

treatment action would immediately cease until 

appropriate notification procedures have been 

accomplished and a decision for proper handling of 

the resource has been made. Wooden structures and 

metal surfaces will be avoided when applying 

chemical retardants, except when such features are in 

danger of imminent exposure to wildland fire.
4-30 

4.10.3 Places of Traditional Cultural 

Importance

Areas used traditionally for hunting would be 

expected to revegetate following a fire event, 

although this may occur slowly. The loss of game 

animals and their habitat until such time as 

revegetation occurred would also be expected. For 

localities where food and/or medicinal plants are 

gathered, effects would be dependent upon the 

amount of time such vegetation would require in 

order to reestablish. The threat of invasive species 

occupying areas associated with traditionally 

important vegetation is also an issue of concern. In 

areas where invasive species currently predominate, 

the potential for culturally important native plant 

species to reestablish following prescribed burns or 

other treatments may be enhanced. 

No places of traditional cultural importance were 

identified by Indian tribes during preparation of the 

LUP Amendment EA. However, needs for 

protecting, and accommodating access to, any such 

places identified by tribes following approval of the 

LUP Amendment would be considered prior to 

implementing individual fire management actions.

4.10.4 Paleontological Resources

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts:

Organic materials (typically those associated with 

extinct Pleistocene land mammals) exposed at or 

immediately below the ground surface could be 

damaged or destroyed by manual, mechanical, or 

prescribed burning treatments. Older, fossilized, 

remains could potentially be damaged by mechanical 

vegetation treatments. Although some scorching 

could be associated with prescribed burns, no serious 

damage to paleontological resources would be 

expected. In the event that paleontological resources 

were discovered in the course of a ground-disturbing 

treatment, such treatment would cease pending 

evaluation by a qualified paleontologist.

No indirect impacts to paleontological resources 

associated with the Proposed Action have been 

identified. Changes in Federal wildland fire 

management policy are applicable to other Federal 

agencies in Arizona. Such policy changes would 

typically have similar potential impacts to 

paleontological resources as described in this EA. 

Such impacts would be mitigated by avoidance of 

scientifically significant fossil resources.

4.11 Visual Resources

Scenic quality and landscape aesthetics is managed 

on BLM lands to meet the objectives of four VRM 

classes established in LUPs, as discussed in Section

3.3.3. The discussion below evaluates how scenic 

characteristics might change under the No-Action 

and Proposed Action Alternatives. The level or 

degree of impact is assessed primarily on basis of 

VRM classes. Visual impacts are caused by changes 

in the landscape induced through either ënaturalí 

processes or management practices and human 

activities. The acceptable degree of change or 

contrast is established by the VRM class 

designations. In terms of impact from wildland fire, 

the consequences of visual impacts are greatest for 

VRM classes I and II, lesser for VRM class III, and 

least for VRM class IV.

4.11.1 No-Action Alternative

Current RMP direction for management of risks and 

hazards of wildland fire is suppression of unplanned 

ignitions. The LUPs do not provide direction for 

management strategies to reduce the risk of wildland 

fire or rehabilitate areas after wildland fire has passed 

through an area. Therefore, trends of increased risk 

and hazard due to the accumulation of fuels are likely 

to continue for all VRM classes. Wildland fires are 

expected to increase in occurrence and severity, 

potentially burning and charring visually sensitive 

areas.

4.11.2 Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts:

The Proposed Action would provide vegetation 

treatment strategies that are consistent with managing 

scenic quality on BLM lands. Non-fire fuels 

treatments could be implemented to reduce hazardous 

fuels with little apparent change to the character or 

scenic quality of the treatment area. Vegetation 

treatments using prescribed fire could result in more 

visual impact on the landscape than non-fire 

vegetation treatments. With prescribed burning, the 

treatment areas would be blackened, woody debris 

would be charred, and, at least during treatment, 

smoke would reduce visibility. As such, the goal of 

allowing fire to resume a more natural ecological role 

across the landscape in consideration of VRM 

objectives constitutes a conflict between ecological 

sustainability and scenic aesthetic. VRM classes I 

and II are at the same time the most ënaturalí and the 

most sensitive to visual impact. In areas where fire 

would naturally occur, VRM class restrictions on the 
4-31 

acceptable degree of change may preclude the reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem.

Relatively more aggressive fuels treatment would be 

allowed in VRM class III and IV areas and could 

indirectly lead to the protection of the more sensitive 

VRM class I and II areas where fuels treatments may 

be more restricted. Unplanned ignitions would be less 

likely to occur and spread in VRM class III and IV 

areas due to fuels reduction, thereby reducing overall 

threat to VRM class I and II areas across the 

landscape. Fuel hazards may not be reduced in some 

VRM class I and II areas due to management 

restrictions based on scenic quality objectives. The 

threat of unplanned ignitions and spread of wildfire 

within these areas could remain high. Smoke from 

prescribed fire in less sensitive VRM class III and IV 

areas could disperse across VRM class I and II areas 

and affect visual quality over the duration of the fuels 

or vegetation treatment.

Site-specific fire management activities are expected 

to cumulatively contribute to better ecosystem 

conditions and the reduction of fire hazards across 

the landscape. This could lead to broad-scale 

sustained ecosystems and scenic aesthetics. Activities 

on BLM lands, including recreational use, carry the 

risk of unplanned ignitions and consequential 

wildfire that could impact scenic quality. Other 

management activities on BLM lands or adjacent 

lands not related to fire management could equally 

impact scenic quality. The proposed adaptive 

management approach to managing fire and fuels on 

BLM lands could, in part, reduce cumulative impacts 

through area designation of fire management 

categories, establishment of long-term goals, and 

emergency stabilization and rehabilitation of areas 

burned by wildfire.

4.12 Special Designation Areas

4.12.1 No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative would result in 

continuation of existing fire management direction. 

As presented in Section 3.3.4, Special Designation 

Areas are comprised of several types of management 

areas and both fire adapted and non-fire adapted 

ecosystem types. Impacts from existing fire 

suppression policy includes accumulation of 

hazardous fuels, changes in fire behavior and return 

intervals, and periodic large, catastrophic wildfires. 

Continuation of these direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts would be expected under the No Action 

Alternative.

4.12.2 Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts:

Potential direct impacts in special designation areas 

would be limited to plant mortality and removal of 

organic matter in defined areas of treatment. These 

direct impacts may include a combination of any of 

the following items: prescribed fire, mechanical 

construction of fuel breaks, thinning of forested 

stands (removal of ladder fuels and immature trees), 

chipping, piling and burning of excess fuels (live 

plant biomass plus decaying materials), application of 

chemical treatments, and addition of biological 

controls for overall vegetative health. 

It is intended that no treatments that fall within the 

Proposed Action would intentionally result in loss of 

an areaís building facilities (e.g., park visitor 

centers), roads, utilities, trails, and other manmade 

infrastructure. Appropriately managed wildland fire 

would also avoid direct impact to all known cultural 

resources and sensitive species habitat (e.g., federally 

listed species). The Proposed Action would 

rigorously seek to avoid alteration of the natural 

character of special designation areas, by maintaining 

the native vegetation of an area and by limiting 

construction of temporary roads and trails. 

Depending upon the type of special designation area 

being managed under the Proposed Action, the use of 

mechanized tools would be carefully limited to the 

minimum necessary to accomplish the tasks at hand. 

Indirect impacts from the Proposed Action may 

include mortality to resident animal life in defined 

areas of treatment. Smoke from prescribed fires may 

indirectly impact a variety of resources including 

wildlife and visitors to these special designation 

areas. Indirect impact from smoke should be 

temporary. The Proposed Action may initially 

increase runoff and erosion, thus indirectly impacting 

riparian ecosystems and water quality downstream of 

treatment areas. Finally, the uses of prescribed fire, 

chemical treatment, and biological treatment have 

some potential to affect areas outside of those 

targeted by the adaptive management action. 

Western ecosystems have been previously altered by 

the No-Action Alternative, where full suppression is 

widely believed to have resulted in overcrowded and 

unhealthy forests and shrublands. In these settings, 

dense fuel loads exist and catastrophic wildland fires 

are a result. The Proposed Action would seek to 

change this paradigm, through adaptive management 

treatments. Thus, a cumulative impact in special 

designation areas may include the alteration of 

vegetative composition and structure at the landscape 
4-32 

level, over time. This may lead to alteration of 

ecological function of these areas as fire returns to its 

historic role. This type of cumulative impact is 

beneficial over the long term. 

Mitigation measures for animal mortality should 

include inventorying treatment areas prior to 

initiation of proposed adaptive management. 

Following inventory, animals may be herded, trapped 

and relocated, or otherwise safeguarded from likely 

impacts. Mitigation for smoke would involve setting 

prescribed fires under proper atmospheric conditions 

and with a focus on limiting or eliminating smoke 

from certain critical areas, such as around human 

habitation and critical wildlife habitat areas. 

Prescribed fires would be properly planned and 

executed to avoid the likelihood that they may spread 

into non-target portions of special designation areas. 

4.13 Land Uses

4.13.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative there would be no 

new impacts to livestock grazing, recreation, forestry, 

and mineral resources. All wildfiresó regardless of 

ignition sourceó would be suppressed in accordance 

with current LUPs and fire management plans. 

Recent large fires have burned with such intensity 

that many land-uses of Arizona rangelands have been 

altered. The primary impacts from continuing the 

current fire management practices are periodic 

disruption to livestock grazing, recreation, forestry, 

and mineral resources which would have varying 

impacts depending on the land use. Disruptions to 

livestock grazing are multi-year because BLM 

guidance suggests a period of rest to allow desirable 

forage to re-establish after fire. Recreation 

disruptions in magnitude and duration would vary 

depending of the fire location, severity, aesthetics, 

vegetation recovery, and damage to facilities. 

Forestry resources in the burned area may be totally 

or partially lost and decades would be required for 

trees to again become of product value. Impacts to 

mineral resources may include disruption of 

transportation corridors and utilities, and damage to 

facilities. The WUI would probably increase in the 

future as people continue to build houses near forests 

and rangelands. 

4.13.2 Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts:

Under the Proposed Action, it is assumed that the 

Desired Future Conditions would be achieved over 

the next several years. As the Desired Future 

Conditions are achieved there would be fewer effects 

to land uses from catastrophic wildfire losses. The 

need for emergency post-fire rehabilitation to control 

soil erosion, the loss of wildlife habitat and livestock 

grazing land, and other effects would decrease. The 

continuing trend of building houses in the WUI is 

expected but with the reduction of hazardous fuels, 

the risk of wildfire loss should decrease.

Livestock grazing, used in conjunction with fire and 

land-use management, can be beneficial or 

detrimental. Livestock grazing may be able to reduce 

the buildup of hazardous fuels through consumption 

and trampling. Grazing may be an acceptable 

approach to reduce hazardous fuels in the WUI where 

other methods may not be suitable. Goat grazing is 

beneficial in reducing woody plant material. Cattle 

and sheep grazing can reduce herbaceous fuel buildup. Livestock trampling may be able to break-up 

fuels into smaller sizes which enhances the rate of 

decomposition. On the other hand, improper grazing 

can lead to increased wildfire hazard through the 

established of annual weeds such as cheatgrass, 

buffelgrass, and red brome. The overgrazing of 

desirable forage reduces plant vigor and encourages 

annual weeds to become established. Many times the 

weedy plants acerbate the hazard of wildfire because 

upon senesces they become highly flammable fuels. 

Recurring fire would eventually result in the loss of 

desirable livestock forage with an increase in weed 

dominance.

Outdoor recreationists and tourists can contribute to 

wildfire risk on BLM rangelands. Human caused 

fire is on the increase supposedly in response to 

increased number of visitors to BLM land and 

carelessness (Table 4.5). However, human caused 

fire is not new on BLM land. Native Americans 

purposely used fire for warfare and hunting. Even 

today, BLM range managers use prescribed fire to 

reduce the build-up of hazard fuels and to improve 

rangelands for livestock grazing and wildlife habitat. 

These fires, however, are carefully planned and 

controlled under specified conditions defined in a 

burn plan. Nevertheless, the difference today is that 

many human-caused wildfires are accidental and 

caused by neglect. Such things as not completing 

extinguishing a camp fire, sparks from OHV, chain 

saw, or railroad car, improper disposal of barbeque 

ashes, fireworks, and numerous other ways can cause 

wildfires. Public outreach programs and interpretive 

signs are ways to educate the public on ways to 

reduce human-caused fires. BLM seeks to reduce the 

risk of human-caused fire by strictly enforcing 

appropriate fire-related activities during certain 

seasons of the year and in certain localities.
4-33 

Forest lands include ponderosa pine forests, pinyon 

and juniper woodlands, and mixed conifer and 

deciduous woodlands. Forest products are limited to 

firewood and fence posts. The Proposed Action 

would reduce hazard fuels in these areas through 

prescribed fire, mechanical, biological, or chemical 

treatments would reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. 

Fires that do occur, whether prescribed of natural 

fire, would be managed to achieve resource goals. 

Improvements in rangeland and forest health would 

also improve forestry resources.

Mineral exploration and extraction activities are 

directly impacted by fire through disruption of 

surface resources such as transportation corridors, 

utility right-of-ways, and buildings. Exploration 

activities may need to be altered in burned areas to 

decrease the potential for soil erosion and allow 

vegetation time to recover. The Proposed Action 

would reduce the risk of fire to mineral resources by 

reducing the occurrence of catastrophic fire through 

hazardous fuel reductions and improvements in forest 

and rangeland health.

As the Desired Future Conditions are achieved, 

improvements in land use would occur. Over the 

long term, vegetation communities should return to 

their normal range of variability in plant composition, 

structure, and productivity resulting in improved 

plant health and vigor, and wildlife habitat. This in 

turn would improve livestock grazing, the quality of 

recreation, and forestry opportunities. Mineral 

resources would not be impacted by any indirect 

effects. 

The National Fire Plan applies to the U.S, Forest 

Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as 

well as the BLM. All of these agencies administer 

federal land in Arizona and have fire management 

responsibilities. These agencies are mandated to take 

the necessary measures to reduce the occurrence of 

catastrophic wildfire through the reduction of 

hazardous fuels including weeds and to improvement 

forest and rangeland health. As these agencies seek 

to return vegetation communities to their normal 

composition, structure, and productivity through 

reduction of hazardous fuels, there should be an 

overall improvement in forest and rangeland health 

and wildlife habitat throughout the state. The overall 

occurrence and acres burned from catastrophic 

wildfire should decrease and decrease the impact of 

catastrophic fire on livestock grazing, recreation, 

forestry, and mineral activities. State and local 

agencies and private land owners may become 

involved through partnerships with federal agencies.

4.14 Socio-Economic 

Conditions

The purpose of this section is to identify/predict the 

likely social and economic outcomes associated with 

BLM management alternatives, including impacts to 

public and firefighter health and safety. Direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts are discussed 

generally, and the actual range of impact would vary 

among individuals and businesses. The following 

discussion presents a useful comparison of the scope 

and type of effects that would be expected under the 

ìno -actionî alternative (continuation of current fire 

management practices) and the Preferred Alternative. 

4.14.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the ìNo -Actionî Alternative, there wou ld be 

no new impacts to the socio-economic environment. 

Full fire suppression would continue under this 

alternative. As shown in Table 4.5, it is expected 

that more than 230 fires and 49,000 acres of BLMadministered lands would burn in Arizona each year

due to wildfires. Over time wildfires would tend to 

grow larger in size, intensity, and severity due to 

unnatural fuel loading conditions. The primary 

impacts from continuing the current fire management 

practices are risks to public and firefighter safety 

during fire suppression activities, loss of income 

from destruction of resources (timber, pasture, 

businesses, etc.), fire suppression costs, watershed 

rehabilitation costs, costs of health impacts 

(particularly from air or water quality effects), altered 

transportation patterns, altered sense of place, and 

impacts to subsistence activities. The movement of 

people into Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas is 

expected to continue into the 21st century. Under the 

No-Action Alternative, protecting communities and 

private parcels from wildfire would become 

increasingly more difficult and expensive. 

Since 1989, there have been at least nine deaths of 

firefighters in Arizona while suppressing large, 

catastrophic wildland fires (including two deaths in 

2003). In 2003, the Aspen Fire burned 84,750 acres 

and destroyed 340 homes before it was contained; 

and in 2002 the Rodeo-Chediski fire burned 469,000 

acres and destroyed 491 homes. Recent catastrophic 

wildfires have burned with such intensity that the 

ecosystems have been drastically changed. Economic 

impacts arise both directly from fire damage and 

indirectly from changes in local economic activity, 

such as a drop in tourism. Both direct and indirect 

effects of wildfires have exacted a heavy economic 

toll on many communities. The consequences of 
4-34 

recent catastrophic wildfires on Arizonaís natural 

resources are as vast as they are varied. Wildland 

fires burned both public and private lands over a 

broad spectrum of rangeland and forested 

ecosystems, often encompassing entire watersheds 

critical to community water supplies. These burned 

lands are also susceptible establishment of 

undesirable noxious weeds. The cost to eradicate 

unwanted invasive species such as cheatgrass, 

although unquantified, is very large.

4.14.2 Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts:

Under the Proposed Action, it is assumed that the 

new Desired Future Conditions would be achieved 

gradually, over 10 to 15 years or longer. As the 

Desired Future Conditions are achieved, and a more 

natural fire regime is established over time, there 

would be fewer economic losses from large, 

unplanned, catastrophic wildland fires. 

The reduction of hazardous fuel loads would reduce 

the risk of a wildland fire reaching catastrophic levels 

and crossing boundaries onto private lands or public 

lands administered by other agencies. As a result, 

overall safety for the general public and potential fire 

hazard conditions facing fire personnel will be 

greatly improved. Over the long-term, the Proposed 

Action would enhance public and firefighter safety 

by reducing the number and extent of catastrophic 

wildfires, reduce the number of homes and other 

property destroyed by catastrophic wildfires, and 

reduce the need for seasonal firefighters and wildfire 

suppression equipment and support services. This 

change could affect the income of seasonal 

firefighters and companies that support wildland fire 

suppression (air tankers, equipment, logistics, etc.), 

since there would be fewer large wildland fires. This 

change would be long-term and permanent. 

Direct impacts from increased use of prescribed fire, 

and chemical, mechanical and biological fuels 

treatment, would be primarily short-term and 

temporary (fuel reduction treatments would need to 

be repeated every few years). The Proposed Action 

would have higher annual treatment costs to the 

BLM. These higher treatment costs would result in 

new opportunities for contractor-provided treatment 

support services, partially off-setting lost revenue 

from reduced wildland fire suppression service 

contracts. During prescribed fires, direct impacts 

would include altered transportation patterns, altered 

sense of place, and impacts to subsistence activities. 

If over the long-term, the public perceives an 

improvement in wildland fire management, people 

that were dissuaded from moving into WUI areas due 

to hazards from catastrophic wildland fires might be 

more likely to move; thus, the Proposed Action might 

indirectly support increased movement into WUI 

areas. Wildfire suppression monies circulate through 

the region would be reduced, and replaced at a lower 

amount by monies from chemical, mechanical, 

biological treatments, or prescribed fire equipment 

and support services. 

Changes in Federal wildland fire management policy 

also apply to the U.S. Forest Service, National Park 

Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs in Arizona. 

BLMís reduced need for catastrophic wildland fire 

suppression support could combine with reduced 

needs for suppression support services by other 

Federal agencies. Wildfire suppression monies 

circulating through the region would also be reduced. 

4.15 Environmental Justice

4.15.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no

new adverse or disproportionate impacts to minority 

or low income populations. 

4.15.2 Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts:

The Proposed Action is not expected to 

disproportionately affect any particular population. 

Environmental affects such as air quality would 

affect the areaís population equally, without regard to 

ethnicity or income level. 

No indirect impacts are expected. 

No cumulative impacts are expected. 
5-1

Section 5.0 Agencies and Individuals Consulted 

and List of Preparers

5.1 Agencies, organizations 

and individuals. 

BLM consulted with 13 other Federal agencies or 

bureaus, 24 Tribal entities, 6 state agencies, and 20 

county agencies. The mailing list containing all 

agency points-of-contact is contained in the 

Administrative Record for this project. Ten groups 

provided BLM with comments on the LUP 

Amendment (Appendix A).

5.2 List of Preparers

5.2.1 Dynamac Corporation

Jim Melton, Project Manager

M.S., Resource Development, Texas A&M 

University

B.S., Soils Science, Texas A&M University

Ronald E. Lamb, Public Involvement, SocioEconomics

M.S., Environmental Science, Johns Hopkins 

University

M.A., Political Science/International Economics, 

University of Nebraska

B.A., Political Science (Economics minor), 

University of Nebraska

Sarah DeRosear, Wildlife Biology, T&E and Sensitive 

Species 

M.S., Wildlife Management, University of Maine

B.A., Biology, Earlham College

Anthony Horne, Cultural Resources

B.A., Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin

Steve Yarbrough, Biology, T&E and Sensitive 

Species, Special Designation Areas

M.A., Plant Science/Biology, University of Colorado 

at Denver

B.A., Environmental Studies, University of Kansas

Dale Lindeman, GIS and Visual Resources

M.S., Geography, Oregon State University

B.S., Wildlife Management, University of Wisconsin

A.A., Columbia College

Jeff Bass, Fire Management, Fire Ecology

B.S., Range Science, Utah State University

Jerry Barker, Vegetation, Fire Ecology, Invasive 

Weeds 

Ph.D., Range Ecology, Utah State University

M.S., Range Ecology, Utah State University

B.S., Botany, Brigham Young University

Joan Gaidos, Soil Resources 

Ph.D., Crop and Soil Environmental Science, 

Virginia Tech

M.S., Animal Science, University of Kentucky

B.S., Animal Science, Virginia Tech

Pius Sanabani, Air Quality

M.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Miami 

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Miami 

H.N.D., College of Science and Technology, Port 

Harcourt

5.2.2 BLM ID Team 

Sherry Hirst, Team Lead

Zone Kingman/Phoenix Field Offices - Fire and 

Fuels NEPA coordinator and Environmental Planner

Kingman, AZ

14 years of experience

Dave Mueller, Fuels Management Specialist/ COR

Arizona State Office

16 years of experience

Mark Pater, Fire Ecologist/Rangeland Management 

Specialist

Stafford/Tucson Field Office

16 years of experience

Hillary Boyd, Fire Ecologist/Wildlife Biologist and 

T&E Specialist

Fire Ecologist Arizona Strip Field Office 

9 years of experience

Paul Hobbs, Soil Scientist/Soil, Water & Air 

Specialist

Kingman Field Office

23 years of experience
5-2

Patricia Bailey, Planning & Environmental 

Coordinator

Yuma Field Office

2 years of experience

James McCray, Fuels Management Specialist

Assistant Fire Manager for Fuels Yuma Field Office

25 years of experience

Lisa Stapp, Management Assistant/ Administrative 

Coordinator

Lake Havasu Field Office

16 years of experience

Timothy Duck, Ecologist

Ecologist Parashant National Monument

St. George, UT 

22 years of experience

5.2.3 Contributing Interdisciplinary 

Team Members

Bill Coulloudon, Rangeland Management Specialist

Arizona State Office

27 years of experience 

Ted Cordery, T&E Specialist

Arizona State Office

Gary Stumpf, Archeologist

Arizona State Office

26 years of experience

Bill Grossi, Wildlife Biologist

Arizona State Office

Jim Renthal, Soil, Water & Air Specialist

Arizona State Office

25 years of experience

Bruce Olson, Fuels Technician Liaison 

Phoenix Field Office

1 year of experience

Ken Moore, Forester

Arizona State Office

8 years of experience

LD Walker, Weed Specialist

Arizona State Office

Jack Johnson, GIS Specialist

Arizona State Office

Mike Fisher, Fire Management Specialist

Arizona State Office

27 years of experience

Rebecca Davidson, Land and Resource Planning 

Coordinator - Liaison 

Arizona Game and Fish Department

6 years of experience 

Gregg Simmons, Planning and NEPA Program Lead

Arizona State Office

28 years of experience

Carrie Templin, External Affairs

Arizona State Office

5.3 BLM Response to Public 

Comment Letters Received

Arizona BLM released a preliminary Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) and supporting EA on 

September 26, 2003, seeking public review and 

comment on our intent to find no significant impact 

as documented in the supporting EA. The comment 

period closed October 27, 2003. Seven public 

comment letters were received, six of which 

contained comments needing a response. Table 5.1, 

BLM Response to Public Comment Letters Received, 

provides a summary of BLM responses to specific 

comments.

All public comments received will be available for 

public review at Bureau of Land Management, 222 

North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, 

during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 

p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
5-3

Table 5.1 ñ BLM Response to Public Comment Letters Received 

Commenter Comment Response

Tom Fry

Wildfire Program Coordinator

Four Corners Regional Office

The Wilderness Society

1660 Wynkoop Street, #850

Denver, CO 80202

303.650.5818x110

tom_fry@tws.org

Given the geographic scope of the plan amendment, the diversity in both the human and physical landscapes within the state of Arizona, and the outdated environmental documentation that this LUP 

amendment is tiered to, we are concerned that an Environmental Assessment is an inadequate level of analysis.

Of additional concern are several suppositions and apparent errors contained within the analysis.

Regardless of the value/resource in question, the No-Action Alternatives is nearly uniformly portrayed as follows: ìThe No -Action Alternative would result in no new impactsÖThe primary impact 

would be the continuation of periodic wildfiresÖIt is anticipated that the number and acres burned will increase in future years following the trend in past yearsÖUnder the No -Action Alternative, 

hazardous fuels will continue to accumulate in the vegetation communities at rates respective to past yearsÖ(EA at 4 -8)î

Certainly the supposition of this argument may apply to certain vegetation communities but not to all. Further, this assertion, in its generality, is misleading, and you have provided no support for the 

assertion of increasing fuel accumulations. 

Another issue that we would like to make you aware of deals with a more specific statement occurring in reference to section 4.4.2, the environmental consequences of the proposed action to 

vegetation communities. The EA states: ìThe landscape under the Proposed Action would be divided into four fire management categories regardless of vegetation community. The fire management 

categories would be defined based on the wildfire threat to human life and property, and historic fire return intervals.î

Surely the division of fire management categories (A-D) will be described at the site-specific level according to vegetation communities. Vegetation communities are an indicator of fire return interval 

and cannot be taken in account independently of each other. We expect that the four BLM individual fire management zones and their respective FMPs will taken into consideration vegetation 

communities as a function of fire return intervals in defining the boundaries of fire management categories.

We understand that this LUP amendment is to be used as a planning tool to give direction in the preparation of updated and compliant Fire Management Plans for the four fire planning areas on BLM 

lands within the state of Arizona. As such, we expect that a more thorough and detailed examination of specific landscape conditions will occur in these planning processes and directly influence 

specific management actions. We appreciate your consideration in informing us when these more site-specific planning processes will occur so that we might offer site-specific relevant information 

and comment.

We would like to commend the BLM office for recognizing that It is expected that acreage allocations in each of the four fire management categories will change over time with acreage in categories B 

and C gradually declining and acreage in category D gradually increasing.

We likewise applaud the EAís recognition that naturally occurring fire is a critical process to ecosystem health and underscoring this recognition by both amending an existing policy of suppressing all 

fires regardless of ignition source or location and removing prescribed burning acreage limitations.

While our reservations concerning the quality of environmental review are outstanding, we appreciate the trajectory that this document sets in the future of fire management on BLM lands within the 

state of Arizona.

The categories (A-D) are based 

on vegetation and also resource 

management objectives. We 

agree that vegetative 

communities are the causal 

factors for the identification of 

fire return intervals. More 

specific information will be 

provided in BLMís Fire 

Management Plans (FMPs) to 

meet the resource objectives as 

stated.

Gary V. Christensen

P.O. Box 308

Springerville, AZ 85938

The goals (Desired Future Conditions, pg 2) identified in this plan are desirable and achievable. With conditions as they are we need to be very careful with controlled burning, but be willing to accept 

some risk to achieve the goals. Most knowledgeable persons now realize the benefits of fire as it relates to a healthy environment. Once the goals have been achieved commitment must be made to 

ìmaintainî the desired condition. Most government agencies seem to have short term goals, but no long term co mmitments.

If the BLM really wants to do something positive for these resources it needs to solve the range abuse problems. I realize that this amendment relates to fire, fuel loads and air quality, but domestic 

livestock grazing as it exists at present is much more detrimental to the land than fire have ever been.

Thank you for your comment 

[no change necessary].

Yuma Valley Rod & Gun 

Club, Inc.

P.O. Box 10450

Yuma, AZ 85366

In particular, the FONSI [Finding of No Significant Impact] is clearly adequate in determination that the amendment is not a major Federal Action and will have no significant effect on the quality of 

the human environment, other than those previously addressed in aforementioned Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). The YVRGC [Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club] also concludes a new or 

supplemental EIS is unnecessary and should not be prepared.

If there is any concern to be addressed by our organization, it is the assurance that BLM State Director Zielinski, Director Shroufe of the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Mr. Coffeen of US 

Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services mutually agree, prior to any projects taking place. This will ensure litigation expenses (should they occur) to remain minimal.

Thank you for your comment 

[no change necessary].

Kathleen Hemenway, PhD

Senior Consultant, Wildfire 

Panel

National Academy of Public 

Admin.

PO Box 2109

Snowflake, AZ 85937

Thank you very much for sending me a copy of the LUP. It is very nice. No change necessary.
5-4

Commenter Comment Response

Rebecca Davidson

Land and Resource Planning 

Coordinator

Arizona Game and Fish 

Department

1. Readability/Clarification:

We appreciate the clarity in the document that specifies that the Department will be included in future planning efforts to address federally protected species in site-specific Fire Management Plans 

(page 2-4). However, it is not clear how fire management activities that may affect other non-listed, yet sensitive and important species and/or their habitats might be addressed in cooperative efforts 

with the Department. Both big game and nongame species are described in detail in the Affected Environment Section and Appendices (pages 3-19, 3-20 and Appendix C), yet it is unclear how the 

Habitat Management Plans that are developed cooperatively between the Department and BLM (pages 2-14 Sikes Act, 3-19 MOU) will relate and integrate with the Fire Management Plans to ensure 

that any wildlife-related species concerns, whether federally listed or not, will be considered and addressed when fire management plans are developed and implemented.

The LUP Amendment, because of its programmatic nature, covers fire management on a large scale across Arizona. It should be clarified in the document that not all BLM lands and vegetation

communities in Arizona would be subject to the same intensities of fire management activities. 

For instance, Table 3.4 ñ To clarify which vegetation communities were historically fire adapted and are now more likely to have active fire management prescriptions, include the fire return rate

(mentioned in the text as examples on page 3-8) for each vegetation community. This will better assist a reader in understanding that not every vegetation community would fall under every

management prescription. The desired future conditions, now listed in Appendix C, might also be included within this table to further describe how fire might be used as a tool to promote ecological 

function, but would be based on the historic and current nature of each vegetation community.

Appendix E ñ For each Herd Management Area (HMA) not incorporated by reference (page 3-18), and therefore described in Appendix E, please include the Appropriate Management Levels

(AML) of burros and/or horses that were established in Herd Management Plans in addition to, or instead of an estimated population. This will ensure that estimated populations are not mistaken for 

the AML. For instance, the Cibola-Trigo HMA has a current estimated number of 300 burros (as written); however the AML set for this HMA is 165 burros.

2. Format/Content:

Page 1-4 ñ Section 1.5 references incorrectly Table 2.2, ìExisting LUP Decisionsî ñ text should reference Table 2.3.

Table 3.4 ñ Elevation and Precipitation in table are listed in feet and inches (respectively), however the vegetation communities described in Appendix C have these same components listed in meters 

and centimeters (respectively). Ensure consistency within document.

Table 3.4 and Figure 3.4 ñ Ensure that Vegetation Community types match between map and table. For instance, the table lists Great Basin Conifer Woodland, the map lists Great Basin PinyonJuniper Woodland.

Appendix C (Vegetation Communities and Associated Wildlife Species) ñ In July 2003, the Department provided comments on wildlife species representative of each vegetation community. 

However, these comments have not been incorporated into this latest version dated September 2003. The species information we provided included a more accurate account of those species that are 

representative of specific vegetation communities, replacing those that were uncommon, rare, outside their range, or have been extirpated entirely from Arizona. Other keystone and important

species, including both big and small game species, were recommended for inclusion. We again include these recommendations in table format as an attachment to this letter.

Appendix F (F-4) ñ Desert Pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) ñ edit to species description: When the desert pupfish was listed as endangered on March 31, 1986, the listing included the Quitobaquito 

pupfish, which at the time was a subspecies of desert pupfish. However, recent genetic work has suggested that the Quitobaquito and the desert pupfish be recognized as full species (C. eremus and 

C. macularius, respectively). 

No natural populations of C. macularius remain in Arizona. In Arizona, reintroduced populations exist only at Cold Springs (Graham County) and Lousy Canyon (Yavaipa County). AD Wash

(Maricopa County) was stocked in 1993, but persisted for only a short time and pupfish have not been collected there since 1993. Therefore, only two reintroduction sites are considered extant, Cold 

Springs and Lousy Canyon. The population of pupfish established at Finley Tank in the 1970s is of questionable heritage originating from the University of Arizona, and is of limited value to

conservation and recovery purposes. 

Critical habitat designations are primarily pertinent to Quitobaquito pupfish. These critical habitat segments are located upstream of BLM lands in Arizona and are outside the proposed action area 

in California. 

Appendix F (F-4) ñ Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) ñ edit to species description: Currently, disjunct populations exist in 14 natural locations and 17 reestablished locations within the

Gila River drainage and one location in the Bill Williams River drainage. Of the reintroduced locations, 15 are in spring habitats. 

References ñ Correct the third reference listed on page R-1: Should read Wildlife 2006. Not 2005.

Add to references (from Appendix C, Table C2): Arizona Game and Fish Department. Hunt Arizona 2002 Edition ñ Survey, Harvest and Hunt Data for Big and Small Game.

The Department supports an adaptive management approach to manage natural fire starts for the benefit of natural resources, to utilize prescribed fire as a tool to promote ecological function, and to 

allow for change in suppression responses for varying circumstances. Again, we appreciate the continued efforts by BLM to ensure that the LUP Amendment was developed cooperatively and that 

decisions impacting wildlife resources were made with the support of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

BLM and Arizona G&F will 

continue to cooperate as outlined 

in the agencyís MOU.

Figure 3.5 provides clarification 

for the location of various fire 

adapted vegetative communities 

and also illustrates the fire return 

frequency. Figure 3.6 displays 

the condition class of these 

vegetative communities as 

related to the historic fire return 

frequency.

AML references have been 

removed.

Change table to 2.3.

Change elevation and 

precipitation to feet and inches 

in Appendix C.

Vegetation community types 

matched.

Change made.

Review changes made to BE and 

include those changes in the EA.

Insert additional references.
Appendix A-i

Appendix A ñ 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Arizona State Office

Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment

DETERMINING THE SCOPE

PROCESS SUMMARY

April 2003

This report documents comments and recommendations gathered from public meetings and other 

outreach activities conducted by the Bureau of Land Managementís (BLM) seven field offices 

throughout the state of Arizona. These field offices include those in Phoenix, Safford, Tucson, 

Lake Havasu City, Yuma, Kingman, and St. George, Utah (Arizona Strip Field Office). These 

comments were collected and this scoping report prepared in accordance with NEPA 

requirements in preparation of the Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan (LUP) Amendments and 

Environmental Assessment (EA). 

Completion of the LUP Amendments is expected by the end of 2004. Throughout the 

development of the LUP Amendments, the public, government agencies, and organizations are 

encouraged to review this scoping report along with other documents and information formulated 

during the planning process. 

To provide comments and recommendations, contact the BLM through Sherry Hirst, Team 

Leader/NEPA Coordinator and Environmental Planner at the Kingman Field Office, or through 

Dave Mueller at the Arizona State Office in Phoenix. 

www.blm.az.gov

AZ_STATEWIDE_LUP@blm.gov
Appendix A-ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTROCUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Description of the Planning Area............................................................................... 1 

2.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS .......................................................................... 2

2.1 Public Meetings ......................................................................................................... 2 

2.2 Planning Worksheet................................................................................................... 3 

2.3 Publicizing BLM Activities on the LUP Amendment Process.................................. 3 

3.0 PUBLIC SCOPING RESULTS....................................................................................... 4

3.1 Summary of Meetings, Attendees, and Issues and Alternatives Raised in the 

Scoping Process......................................................................................................... 4 

3.2 Summary of Reasons Why Meeting Attendees Value Public Lands......................... 4 

3.3 Issues Raised.............................................................................................................. 5 

Issue 1: The Impact of Fire Management on Livestock Grazing.............................. 6 

Issue 2: Prescribed and Naturally-Occurring Burns ................................................. 7 

Issue 3: Hazardous Wildland Fuels and Fuels Reduction.......................................... 8 

Issue 4: Wildland-Urban Interface Fires.................................................................... 9 

Issue 5: Air and Water Quality ................................................................................. 9 

Miscellaneous Resource Comments........................................................................ 10 

General Comments about Meetings and BLM Efforts............................................ 11 

3.4 Additional Suggestions for BLM Fire Management and Public Involvement ........ 11 

4.0 FIRE ISSUES RAISED AT OTHER ARIZONA PLANNING EFFORTS .............. 12
Appendix A-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has begun a statewide effort to amend its seven Land

Use Plans (LUPs) in Arizona in order to provide a consistent approach to the management of fire 

across BLM lands, and coordinate this effort with other federal, state, and local land

management entities, the tribes, and the public. The LUPs are six Resource Management Plans

(the Phoenix, Kingman, Arizona Strip, Safford, Yuma, and Lower Gila South RMPs) and one

Management Framework Plan (the Lower Gila North MFP).

This effort is being undertaken because LUP evaluations in 2001 for each of the field offices

resulted in a finding that existing LUPs were consistently inadequate to address todayís fire

management concerns and issues. The LUPs did not address the use of prescribed fire as a

management tool; the issue of hazardous fuel buildup; the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and

special fire management procedures in these areas; or emergency fire rehabilitation plans, and

generally favored suppression as a means of fire management. Catastrophic fires across the west 

and particularly in Arizona have forced a rethinking of previous fire management strategies and 

as such, each of the seven LUPs will be amended to incorporate new fire science, management

direction and policies such as the National Fire Plan and the 2001 Federal Wildland Fire

Management Policy. 

1.1 Description of the Planning Area

The LUP Amendment/Environmental Assessment (EA) covers approximately 12 million acres of 

public lands consisting of 2 million acres of Ponderosa Pine, Pinion/Juniper woodlands, 10

million acres of South West desert vegetation, and 43,000 acres of riparian vegetation. Over 200 

wildfires occur annually on BLM-administered lands within Arizona, with the recent ten year

average of 235 wildland fires for 24,241 acres burned per year. Wildfires can threaten human life 

and property, and disrupt the proper functioning of hydrology, soils, plants, animals, and

ecological relationships. The BLMís goal is to reduce the number of unplanned human caused

wildfires, thus reducing the need, costs and risk incurred during fire fighting efforts. Other

primary goals for BLM are, the reduction of hazardous fuels, providing for increased safety to

the public and local communities, while reducing the need for rehabilitation of burned acres and, 

where needed, use prescribed or natural fires to maintain or improve Arizonaís native habitats. 

General Land Ownership in Arizona Acres Percent of Total

Bureau of Land Management 12,000,000 16.5%

Other Federal Agencies 18,704,000 25.6%

State of Arizona 9,335,000 12.8%

Indian Trust 19,910,000 27.3%

Private 12,982,000 17.8%
Appendix A-2

2.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

The LUP amendment process has begun. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

in accordance with BLM planning requirements (43 CFR 1600), policies, and handbooks, an

Environmental Assessment (EA) is underway to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed

management direction on critical elements and resources of the human environment such as

wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, invasive plant species, socio-economics, and health and

human safety. As part of the EA, wildlife biologists and range scientists from BLM, Dynamac,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the state, and other federal agencies have begun consultation 

procedures under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC ß1536) to determine

whether there may be an impact on endangered or threatened or candidate plant and animal

species or their habitats through any potential actions the BLM might take. 

To ensure that the most appropriate measures of managing wildland fire in Arizona are selected

from numerous options and alternatives, BLM considers public input essential to the LUP

Amendment process. BLMís planning regulations at 43 CFR 1600 set out specific procedures

describing how to involve the public. In many instances, the BLM in Arizona is going beyond

what is required to obtain input from as many diverse stakeholding parties as possible, and

incorporate this public input into the EA, the Record of Decision, and the final LUP Amendment. 

2.1 Public Meetings

The principle means by which BLM obtained public input was to host a series of eight openhouse style meetings across the state. The meetings occurred during the first two weeks of 

March, and were held in Phoenix, Flagstaff, Tucson, Yuma, Safford, Kingman, Lake Havasu

City, and St. George, Utah (Arizona Strip). The meetings were held in public locations between

6:00 to 9:00 p.m. More than 100 people attended at least one of the meetings. 

An open house format was used for the public meetings. Information and educational materials

were available for the public to review at their own pace and interact with BLM, Dynamac and

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) staff in an informal setting. At every meeting, attendees were

greeted, given a copy of the planning bulletin, provided with an overview of the meeting format, 

and invited to view the exhibits and ask questions. If they were not already on BLMís mailing

list, they were also offered the opportunity to be placed on the mailing list to obtain future

Planning Bulletins. 

Exhibits and posters presented an overview of the BLM planning process and the NEPA process, 

firewise educational material, the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), the role of fire in a natural

ecosystem, and invasive species. Maps of the community assessment area will be available for

the participants to review and comment on. BLM, Dyanamac and TNC staff engaged the

participants in discussions to identify values at risk from wildland fire, their perspective on

proposed BLM actions to manage fire, and actions that could be undertaken to reduce the risk of 

wildland fire. The meetings were also an opportunity for the public to learn about the LUP

amendment process, why BLM is undertaking the process, and general information about the

benefits and/or dangers of fire in arid or semi-arid ecosystems, fire-resistant plants, and ways in

which individuals could reduce the risk posed by wildfire to their homes and property. Attendees 

were asked to fill out a planning worksheet/survey form describing their ideas, suggestions, and
Appendix A-3

concerns about the LUP amendment process. The information that BLM obtained from members 

of the public who attended these meetings is the subject of this report. 

2.2 Planning Worksheet 

As mentioned above, at each public meeting attendees were asked to fill out a planning

worksheet. Questions on the planning worksheet were: 

1. What do you value about these public lands and why?

2. What resource objectives should be used to guide fire and fuels management activities?

3. How should the BLM work with your community to reduce wildland fire hazards?

4. How would you like to see the wildland fire suppressed, fuel treatments implemented,

and/or air quality monitored, on BLM administered lands in Arizona or by specific BLM 

Field Office administered lands?

5. Is there anything else you want to tell us?

Respondents also had the opportunity to be added to BLMís mailing list. The planning

worksheet was in the form of a postage-paid mailer. Responses could also be sent to BLM via email at AZ_STATEWIDE_LUP@blm.gov. Additional planning worksheets will be included in

future planning bulletins. 

2.3 Publicizing BLM Activities on the LUP Amendment Process

BLM undertook activities to inform and obtain input from other Federal, state, Tribal and local

agencies of the proposed LUP amendment process. The following describes other efforts BLM

has undertaken thus far to publicize the LUP amendment process, and to obtain public input. 

ß BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to amend the seven LUPs in the Federal Register on 

January 27, 2003. 

ß Planning Bulletin, volume 1, was mailed in mid-February to more than 3,500 names on

BLMís statewide contact list. This Planning Bulletin introduced the LUP Amendment

process to many various types of interested parties, and listed a schedule for public scoping

meetings, which were to take place in March. 

ß BLM also publicized these meetings through published notices in the Arizona Republic

(Phoenix), the Arizona Daily Sun (Flagstaff), Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), the Tucson 

Citizen, Eastern Arizona Courier (Safford), the Kingman Daily Miner, The Spectrum (St.

George) and Today's News Herald (Lake Havasu City) newspapers, and by listing a meeting

schedule on its website, www.az.blm.gov, under ìPlanningî. 

ß News releases were sent to daily and weekly newspapers, radio and TV outlets statewide. 

ß Agencies were given the opportunity to participate and comment. In January and February,

2003, letters were sent by the BLM, Deputy State Director, to Arizona Federal, State, and

County agencies, and to Tribal contacts. These letters provided background information on

BLMís statewide fire, fuels and air quality LUP amendment process, and invited them to

attend one of the public meetings or to contact BLM if they would like a separate meeting. 

ß In May 2003, Planning Bulletin #2 was mailed to each of BLMís 3,500 contacts, as well as

new stakeholding parties that indicated at the meeting that they would like to be included on 

the mailing list. 
Appendix A-4

3.0 PUBLIC SCOPING RESULTS

3.1 Summary of Meetings, Attendees, and Issues and Alternatives Raised in the Scoping 

Process

BLM, TNC, and Dynamac spoke with many individuals representing a wide variety of interests

and viewpoints at each of the scoping meetings in March. Some individuals were very

knowledgeable about fire issues and potential management concerns, and offered suggestions or 

ideas as to how they thought BLM should best manage certain areas to reintroduce fire to the

landscape. Others came to the meeting for their own education regarding fire management on

BLM lands in Arizona, and either declined to comment or were not yet ready to offer

suggestions and voice their concerns before gaining more information about the LUP amendment 

process and what BLM proposed to do. 

BLM heard from the following groups, which commented on the Arizona state LUP amendments 

either face-to-face at the scoping meetings, or responded via U.S. Post or email to BLMís

Planning Bulletin #1, which was mailed to BLMís constituents statewide. 

Groups from which BLM has Received Comments on LUP Amendment 

Prescott National Forest

Kaibab National Forest

White Mountain Apache Tribe

Las Vegas Paiute Tribe

Mescalero Apache Tribal Historic Preservation Office

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Ft. Yuma Agency

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Yuma County

Laguna and Yuma Natural Resource Conservation Districts

Public Lands Foundation

3.2 Summary of Reasons Why Meeting Attendees Value Public Lands

As mentioned in Section 2.2 above, the first question meeting attendees were asked on the

planning worksheet was, ìWhat do you value about these public lands and why?î The following 

is a summary of their responses: 

• Undeveloped character as wilderness or as rural lands

• Biodiversity and habitat

• Recreational experiences

• Habitat interactive experiences

• Contributions to the economy and development of resources and schools through grazing 

leases.

• Rich diversity of plants and animals

• Beauty of the valleys and mountains

• Public access

• Hunting

• Camping 
Appendix A-5

3.3 Issues Raised

BLM equates land use planning with problem solving and issue resolution, as it must according

to planning regulations 43 CFR Part 1600. An initial step in developing the LUP amendments is 

to identify relevant issues and concerns that are within the scope of the task BLM is seeking to

accomplish, in this case, the reintroduction of fire to the ecosystem as a management tool. An

issue is defined as an opportunity, conflict, or problem regarding the use or management of

public lands. As discussed previously, at each public meeting BLM, Dyanamac and TNC staff

engaged attendees in discussions on their perspective on proposed BLM actions to manage fire,

and actions that could be undertaken to reduce the risk of wildland fire. The planning worksheet 

given to meeting attendees asked several open-ended questions regarding BLMís fire

management activities. The following is a summary of the publicís responses: BLM received

many comments regarding how BLM should incorporate fire management into its existing LUPs. 

To ensure all comments were addressed in this summary report, these comments are listed below, 

grouped into areas of greatest concern, analyzed to determine whether the issues raised are

within the scope of the LUP amendment process, and restated as an issue question to clarify

needed decisions. The reasons that any comments may be determined to be outside of the scope 

of the current planning process are detailed in footnotes below the comment. 

Although BLM listened to many different types of issues raised by the public, certain major

concerns were raised frequently. The comments received were alternately approving or

disapproving of past or current management practices, and were sometimes accompanied by

suggestions for future fire management. Generally, these ìrecurring themesî consisted of

concerns about the following: 1) the impact of fire management on livestock grazing; 2)

prescribed and naturally-ignited burns; 3) hazardous wildland fuels and fuels reduction; 4)

wildland-urban interface fires; and 5) air and water quality. The comments below were distilled

from completed planning worksheets, from conversations between BLM staff and the public at

the public meetings, and from meeting notes taken by the planning team.
Appendix A-6

Issue 1: The Impact of Fire Management on Livestock Grazing

Comment from Public Within 

Scope? 

Issue Question Change 

Proposed? 

Concern about the potential effects of BLM 

fire management on livestock grazing 

permits.

Yes How will new fire management techniques 

affect grazing permits, if at all?

No

Concern that prescribed burns and allowing 

natural starts to burn will have at least a 

short term effect on livestock forage 

availability.

Yes Will the increased use of fire as a 

management tool affect livestock forage, 

and if so, how shall BLM notify those 

potentially affected?

No

There should be less grazing on public 

lands in the west.

No1 N/A No

Concerned that rangeland fires could reduce 

the amount of available forage for cattle.

Yes How will the increased use of fire impact the 

amount of forage on leased grazing lands 

and adjacent property?

No

Livestock operations have contributed to the 

proper management of fires as well as 

maintaining native grasses, vegetation, and 

habitat. We hope BLMís new fire 

management plan will not make the same 

mistake the Forest Service has made in 

Arizona, Colorado and New Mexicoó

eliminating livestock grazing.

Yes What is the appropriate level of grazing to 

maintain optimum fire conditions in an 

ecosystem?

No

Proper vegetative management will reduce 

widespread fuel and fire excesses. A most 

efficient and economical biological control is 

livestock grazing. We recommend liberal 

public access and that grazing on public 

lands is permitted as part of the plan. 

Yes Is grazing a viable form of biological 

treatment to control hazardous fuel loads?

No

 

1

 Livestock grazing on western public lands may have wildland fire management implications, but whether or not it 

should occur at all, or the extent to which it is permitted, is beyond the scope of this LUP amendment, which deals 

strictly with issues directly related to fire. 
Appendix A-7

Issue 2: Prescribed and Naturally-Occurring Burns

 

Comment from Public Within 

Scope? 

Issue Question Change Proposed?

The use of prescribed fires to improve 

natural resources is a good idea. 

Yes N/A No

Support expanding the prescribed burning 

programs as well as thinning where 

appropriate. There needs to be a strong 

emphasis on fuels reduction via prescribed 

burning, in those areas where fuels are at 

unhealthy levels. 

Yes Where is prescribed fire 

appropriate?

No

Natural cyclic fire management practices 

based on historical data and current fuel 

loads [should be used to guide fire and fuels 

management activities]. Fires should be 

regular enough to keep flame lengths to a 

ìcreepingî or low level. 

Yes N/A No

Would prefer NO suppression unless 

absolutely necessary.

Yes When, if ever, is suppression 

necessary/should suppression 

be used as the optimum 

method of fire management? 

Permitted fuelwood harvesting, 

grazing/mowing, and 

herbicidal applications 

determined appropriate by 

agency personnel and 

stakeholders, in addition to 

natural fire cycles. 
Appendix A-8

Issue 3: Hazardous Wildland Fuels and Fuels Reduction

Comment from Public Within 

Scope? 

Issue Question Change Proposed?

How will BLM maximize timber production 

while preserving scenic values?

Yes How will BLM maximize 

timber production while 

preserving scenic values?

No

Concerned that big trees will be logged, that 

BLMís proposed action is just an excuse for 

doing more than what is really needed to 

reduce the risk of wildland fire, such as 

clearing out large parcels of land around 

houses based on WUI concerns.

Yes How will BLM integrate 

hazardous fuels reduction 

with the need to maintain 

forested lands as forests (on 

BLM land, and in 

conjunction with adjacent 

USFS lands)? 

No

Fire breaks (clear cuts) are a proper 

management tool.

Yes N/A No

Private logging companies should be 

required to reduce fuel loads before being 

awarded timber contracts 

Yes What is the best means of 

encouraging fuels reduction 

by private timber 

companies?

No

ìI do not support the Bush administrationís 

plan for wholesale for-profit loggingî

Yes N/A ìScrapî the Bush ëhealthy forestí 

plan and instead vastly expand 

existing wildland fire agencies, or 

else reviving something like the 

old Civilian Conservation Corps 

to do the thinning and prescribed 

burning. 

Regarding the flooding of Wickenburg, we 

need to investigate tree trimming/fuelwood 

cutting along drainage into the Hassayampa 

River, and controlled burning.

Yes What impact does fuels 

reduction have on flooding 

in watersheds where it is 

practiced? 

No
Appendix A-9

Issue 4: Wildland-Urban Interface Fires

Comment from Public Within 

Scope? 

Issue Question Change 

Proposed? 

General concern for WUI fire issues. Yes How will the BLM manage fire in WUI areas 

in the LUP amendment?

No

We are not sympathetic to the individuals 

living in rural areas that are highly 

susceptible to wildfire. Government money 

should not be spent on protecting private 

property in fire-prone areas.

Yes Is the protection of private property in fireprone areas an appropriate expenditure of 

firefighting resources, and if so, at what level 

should BLM protect private property?

No

Issue 5: Air and Water Quality

Comment from Public Within 

Scope? 

Issue Question Change 

Proposed? 

BLM shouldnít undertake burns that will 

affect air quality during hunting season.

Yes When is the most appropriate time of year to 

conduct prescribed burns, so as to have the 

smallest adverse effect on air quality?

(Implied in 

comment): 

Undertake burns 

during other 

times of the year 

than hunting 

season.

On tribal lands, there can be fire and smoke 

that is a problem.

No N/A No

Air quality monitoring should be subcontracted to private business.No N/A No

Regarding the flooding of Wickenburg, we 

need to investigate tree trimming/fuelwood 

cutting along drainage into the Hassayampa 

River, and controlled burning.

Yes What impact does fuels reduction have on 

water quality in watersheds where it is 

practiced? 

No
Appendix A-10

Miscellaneous Resource Comments

Comment from Public Within 

Scope? 

Issue Question Change Proposed?

BLM should develop Fire Use areas 

adjacent to USFS Fire Use areas.

Yes What BLM-managed lands are 

adjacent to USFS-managed Fire 

Use areas, and are they 

appropriate for designated Fire 

Use areas themselves?

Aqua Fria grasslands and the 

south end of the Bradshaws 

below the Prescott National 

Forest boundary. 

Pursuant to the National historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) and other 

related authorities, all BLM fire and 

fuels management planning should 

reflect clear and consistent 

consideration that fire is the single 

greatest threat to organic components 

of cultural, archaeological, and 

historical resources. 

Yes How does BLM minimize the 

impact of fire on historic and 

cultural resources?

The Amendments to the Land 

Use Plans should ensure that 

adequate steps are 

systematically taken to identify, 

document, and protect from fire 

all structures and sites that 

contain organic components, 

notably rockshelters, brush and 

wooden structures, sensitive 

plant species having cultural 

values, etc. 

BLM must adequately address the 

environmental consequences of its fire 

management actions. (No specific 

environmental consequences 

mentioned).

Yes What are the environmental 

consequences of each of BLMís 

fire management actions?

No

Fire policy should be based on sound 

ecological policies and science, with the 

main guiding objective being the 

preservation of biodiversity.

Yes How can fire be managed to 

increase biodiversity?

How does fire affect biodiversity 

in an ecosystem?

No

We are seriously disappointed that our 

government has refused to stand up to 

the silly notions of eastern 

environmentalists. Eliminating fires and 

livestock grazing has taken a grave toll 

upon the health of public lands and 

wildlife, citizensí homes and businesses 

and our governmentís credibility and 

ability to ìmanageî.

Yes N/A No

Use fire to remove invasive species 

such as tamarisk. Let it burn all the 

way down so maybe the fire can kill 

some of it!

Yes How can fire be used to control 

invasive species? How does 

BLM ensure that more invasive 

species will not overtake recently 

burned areas?

No
Appendix A-11

General Comments about Meetings and BLM Efforts

Comment from Public Within 

Scope?

Issue Question Change Proposed?

There is a heightened awareness of 

wildfire because of the large fires in 

Arizona last year. However, many 

people were present for information 

and were not yet prepared to discuss 

new management techniques or 

alternatives regarding fire 

reintroduction. 

N/A N/A N/A

Universal public support for BLM 

being proactive about wildland fire 

management issues.

N/A N/A N/A

Using fire to manage ecosystems is a 

good idea. 

N/A N/A N/A

Open forum meetings are an 

excellent forum

N/A N/A N/A

Better publicity is needed for the 

meetings.

Yes How can BLM inform more people 

about public meetings?

No

How will BLM maximize timber 

production while preserving scenic 

values?

Yes How will BLM maximize timber 

production while preserving scenic 

values?

No

Past fire suppression has led to 

problems.

Yes N/A N/A

Will the LUP amendments consider 

how fire will be managed within the 

monuments?

Yes How does BLM ensure that 

management is consistent across 

public lands including national 

monuments?

N/A

The areas set aside by presidential 

proclamation should remain as public 

lands to be administered under the 

BLMís current multiple use concepts.

No N/A N/A

Concerned about representation of 

the Nature Conservancy being one of 

the main players or drivers of the 

LUP and EA Process. 

Yes Is there balanced representation of 

interests at the planning level? 

Think about having a rep. From 

The Farm Bureau or Arizona 

Cattle Growers or some group 

that lives on the land. 

3.4 Additional Suggestions for BLM Fire Management and Public Involvement

The following suggestions were provided by the public to BLM:

ß Restrict camp fires during fire season 

ß Require spark arrester mufflers

ß Interact with stakeholders first and foremost. Involve all local/federal agencies that have an 

interest in the affected resource. 

ß Look at the recent Mittry Lake fire area and note ìhow fast it will green upî.

ß Interact with stakeholders first and foremost. Involve all local/federal agencies that have an 

interest in the affected resource.
Appendix A-12

4.0 FIRE ISSUES RAISED AT OTHER ARIZONA PLANNING EFFORTS 

In addition to this planning effort, BLM has several other land use planning efforts ongoing in

Arizona. These include the Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for the Lake Havasu and the Arizona Strip BLM Districts, and the RMP/EIS for 

the Agua Fria National Monument/Bradshaw-Harquahala planning areas. The scope of these

planning efforts was much wider, focusing on many issues such as public access, mineral

development, recreation, visual resources, hazardous materials and solid waste, and others. Still, 

throughout the scoping process for each of these efforts, wildland fire management issues were

raised on several occasions. As these comments may be relevant to the statewide LUP

amendment for appropriate fire management practices, they are summarized below:

Fire Issues Raised Through the Scoping Process for the Agua Fria National 

Monument/Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Areas:

ß Debris and brush clearing programs need to be expanded.

ß Return natural fire cycles.

ß Return natural fire regime to mesa tops.

Through this planning effort, a fire management plan is being developed for the Agua Fria

National Monument. BLMís fire management plan will be structured in accordance with the

Agua Fria management Plan now being developed. 

Fire Issues Raised Through the Scoping Process for the Lake Havasu Field Office RMP/EIS:

ß Is there a danger or risk to the public from field office-controlled burns and illegal burns on

BLM lands? Is the current Fire Management Plan sufficient? 

Fire Issues Raised Through the Scoping Process for the Arizona Strip Field Office RMP/EIS:

ß Several comments urged returning fire to the ecosystem, mostly by letting fire run its course 

or a ìlet -burnî policy. Some stated that fire management practices should be allowed. One

comment stated that fire, reseeding and land restoration should be allowed. 

ß Several people expressed concern about the build-up of high fuel loads, stating that logging

and/or cattle grazing are effective methods of reducing high fuel loads. Over-regulation and 

past land management [were] also cited as causes of high fuel loads. 

ß Is there a need to change any present cultural use allocations based on new information,

public demand, or research needs? 

ß Where are the WUI areas that are threatened by wildland fire on the Arizona Strip? What

criteria will be used to prioritize these areas and how will future impacts from wildland fire

be reduced? 

ß Where are other areas where wildland fire is not desired? What criteria will be used to

prioritize these areas for future fuels treatments to reduce the negative impact of wildland fire?

ß Where are the areas where wildland fire may be used to further resource objectives or

achieve desired future conditions? What criteria will be used to prioritize or manage these

areas effectively with wildland fire?
Appendix A-13

ß How will areas of high priority for using prescribed fire as a management tool be identified

and prioritized? 

ß Are there any general restrictions on fire management practices (including wildfire

suppression and fuels management) needed to protect other resource values? 
Appendix B-1

Appendix B ñ Applicable Laws, Regulations,

Policies and Planning Criteria

When considering the affected environment, physical, biological, economic, and social environmental 

factors must be considered. In addition to NEPA there are other environmental laws as well as Executive 

Orders (EOs) to be considered when preparing EAs and EISs. These laws are summarized below. 

Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and Amendments of 1977 and 1990

The CAA recognizes that increases in air pollution result in danger to public health and welfare. To 

protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources, the CAA authorizes the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to set six National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) which regulate 

carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter pollution 

emissions. The CAA seeks to reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants at their source, and designates 

this responsibility to State and local governments. States are directed to utilize financial and technical 

assistance as well as leadership from the Federal government to develop implementation plans to achieve 

NAAQS. Geographic areas are officially designated by the EPA as being in attainment or non-attainment 

to pollutants in relation to their compliance with NAAQS. Geographic regions established for air quality 

planning purposes are designated as Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR). Pollutant concentration levels 

are measured at designated monitoring stations within the AQCR. An area is designated as unclassifiable 

where insufficient monitoring data exists. Section 309 of the CAA authorizes the EPA to review and 

comment on impact statements prepared by other agencies. 

An agency should consider what effect an action may have on NAAQS due to short-term increases in air 

pollution during construction as well as long-term increases resulting from changes in traffic patterns. For 

actions in attainment areas, a Federal agency may also be subject to EPA's Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) regulations. These regulations apply to new major stationary sources and 

modifications to such sources. Although few agency facilities will actually emit pollutants, increases in 

pollution can result from a change in traffic patterns or volume. Section 118 of the CAA waives Federal 

immunity from complying with the CAA and states all Federal agencies will comply with all Federal and 

State approved requirements. 

Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977

The CWA, a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, is administered by the 

EPA and sets the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into U.S. waters. The CWA 

requires the EPA to establish water quality standards for specified contaminants in surface waters and 

forbids the discharge of pollutants from a point source into navigable waters without a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. NPDES permits are issued by EPA or the appropriate 

State if it has assumed responsibility. Section 404 of the CWA establishes a Federal program to regulate 

the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States. Section 404 permits are issued 

by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Waters of the United States include interstate and 

intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands which are used for commerce, recreation, industry, sources 

of fish, and other purposes. The objective of the Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Each agency should consider the impact on water quality from 

actions such as the discharge of dredge or fill material into U.S. waters from construction, or the 

discharge of pollutants as a result of facility occupation. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and 

the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)

CERCLA authorizes the EPA to respond to spills and other releases of hazardous substances to the 

environment, and authorizes the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. 

CERCLA also provides a Federal "Superfund" to respond to emergencies immediately. Although the 
Appendix B-2

"Superfund" provides funds for clean up of sites where potentially responsible parties (PRPs) cannot be 

identified, the EPA is authorized to recover funds through damages collected from responsible parties. 

This funding process places the economic burden for cleanup on polluters. SARA mandates strong 

cleanup standards, and authorizes the EPA to use a variety of incentives to encourage settlements. Title 

III of SARA authorizes the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), which 

requires facility operators with "hazardous substances" or "extremely hazardous substances" to prepare 

comprehensive emergency plans and to report accidental releases. EO 12856, "Federal Compliance with 

Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements," requires Federal agencies to comply with 

the provisions EPCRA. If a Federal agency acquires a contaminated site it can be held liable for clean up 

as the property owner/operator. A Federal agency can also incur liability if it leases a property, as the 

courts have found lessees liable as "owners." However, if the agency exercises due diligence by 

conducting a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, it may claim the "innocent purchaser" defense 

under CERCLA. According to Title 42 United States Code (USC) 9601(35), the current owner/operator 

must show it undertook "all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property 

consistent with good commercial or customary practice" before buying the property to use this defense. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976

RCRA, an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, authorizes the EPA to provide for "cradle-tograve" management of hazardous waste, and sets a framework for the management of non-hazardous 

municipal solid waste. Under RCRA, hazardous waste is controlled from generation to disposal through 

tracking and permitting systems, and restrictions and controls on the placement of waste on or into the 

land. Under RCRA, a waste is defined as hazardous if it is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, toxic or listed by 

the EPA as being hazardous. With the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), Congress 

targeted stricter standards for waste disposal and encouraged pollution prevention by prohibiting the land 

disposal of particular wastes. The HSWA amendments strengthen control of both hazardous and 

nonhazardous waste and emphasize the prevention of pollution of groundwater. 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974

The SDWA establishes a Federal program to monitor and increase the safety of all commercially and 

publicly supplied drinking water. Congress amended the SDWA in 1986, mandating dramatic changes in 

nationwide safeguards for drinking water and establishing new Federal enforcement responsibility on the 

part of the EPA. The 1986 amendments to the SDWA require the EPA to establish Maximum 

Contaminant Levels (MCLs), Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and Best Available 

Technology (BAT) treatment techniques for organic, inorganic, radioactive, and microbial contaminants, 

and turbidity. MCLGs are maximum concentrations below which no negative human health effects are 

known to exist. The 1996 amendments set current Federal MCLs, MCLGs, and BATs for organic, 

inorganic, microbiological, and radiological contaminants in public drinking water supplies. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976

FLPMA and the regulations contained in 43 CFR Part 1600 govern the Bureau of Land Management 

planning process. Land Use Plans ensure that public lands are managed in accordance with the intent of 

Congress as stated in FLPMA, under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. As required by 

FLPMA, the public lands must be managed in a manner that protects the quality of scientific, scenic, 

historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that, 

where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition, that will 

provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor 

recreation and human occupancy and use by encouraging collaboration and public participation

throughout the planning process. In addition, the public lands must be managed in a manner that 

recognizes the Nationís need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public 

lands.
Appendix B-3

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended and supplemented. 

The Taylor Grazing Act was the Federal governmentís first effort to regulate grazing on federal public 

lands. The act established grazing districts of vacant, unappropriated and unreserved land from any parts 

of the public domain, excluding Alaska, which are not national forests, parks, and monuments, Indian 

reservations, railroad grant lands, or revested Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands, and which are valuable 

chiefly for grazing and raising forage crops. Residents and stock owners pay an annual fee to obtain a 

grazing permit which is used to manage livestock grazing in established districts. Grazing Administration 

Regulations (43 CFR 4100) provide for the development of state Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management. The Standards and Guidelines are approved through Bureau of 

Land Management planning and NEPA processes.

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 

The Public Rangelands Improvement Act was instituted to improve the conditions on public rangelands. 

Rangelands are defined as lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land 

Management or the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service in 16 contiguous western states, 

including Arizona, on which there is domestic livestock grazing or which the appropriate Secretary determines 

may be suitable for domestic livestock grazing. Rangeland quality is determined by soil quality, forage values, 

wildlife habitat, watershed and plant communities, the current state of vegetation in a site in relation to its 

potential, and the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of vegetation in a plant 

community resemble the desired plant community. The act requires a national rangelands inventory and 

consistent federal management policies. In addition, the act provides funding for range improvement projects.

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972

The CZMA is concerned with the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the 

Nation's coastal zone. The coastal zone refers to the coastal waters and the adjacent shorelines including 

islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, and beaches, and includes the Great Lakes. 

The CZMA declares a National policy to preserve, protect and develop, and where possible restore or 

enhance the resources of the Nation's coastal zone. The CZMA encourages states to exercise their full 

authority over the coastal zone, through the development of land and water use programs in cooperation 

with Federal and local governments. States may apply for grants to help develop and implement 

management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone. Development 

projects affecting land or water use or natural resources of a coastal zone, must ensure the project is, to the 

maximum extent practicable, consistent with the state's coastal zone management program. 

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976

Title I of the Toxic Substance Control Act established requirements and authorities to identify and control 

toxic chemical hazards to human health and the environment. TSCA authorized the EPA to gather 

information on chemical risks, require companies to test chemicals for toxic effects, and regulate 

chemicals with unreasonable risk. TSCA also singled out polychlorinated bi-phenyls (PCBs) for 

regulation and as a result are being phased out. TSCA and its regulations govern the manufacture, 

processing, distribution, use, marking, storage, disposal, clean-up, and release reporting requirements for 

numerous chemicals like PCBs. PCBs are persistent when released into the environment and accumulate 

in the tissues of living organisms. They have been shown to cause adverse health effects on laboratory 

animals and may cause adverse health effects in humans. TSCA Title II provides statutory framework for 

"Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response," which applies only to schools. TSCA Title III, "Indoor Radon 

Abatement," states indoor air in buildings of the United States should be as free of radon as the outside 

ambient air. Federal agencies are required to conduct studies on the extent of radon contamination in 

buildings they own. TSCA Title IV, "Lead Exposure Reduction," directs Federal agencies to "conduct a 

comprehensive program to promote safe, effective, and affordable monitoring, detection, and abatement 

of lead-based paint and other lead exposure hazards." Further, any Federal agency having jurisdiction 
Appendix B-4

over a property or facility must comply with all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements 

concerning lead-based paint. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968

By recognizing the remarkable values of specific rivers of the Nation, the WSRA provides for a wild and 

scenic river system. These selected rivers and their immediate environment are preserved in a freeflowing condition, without dams or other construction. The policy not only protects the water quality of 

the selected rivers but also provides for the enjoyment of present and future generations. Any river in a 

free-flowing condition is eligible for inclusion, and can be authorized as such by an Act of Congress, an 

act of State legislature, or by the Secretary of Interior upon the recommendation of the Governor of the 

State(s) through which the river flows. 

EO 11988, "Floodplain Management," May 24, 1977

EO 11988 directs agencies to consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development 

in floodplains. An agency may locate a facility in a floodplain if the head of the agency finds there is no 

practicable alternative. If it is found there is no practicable alternative, the agency must minimize potential 

harm to the floodplain, and circulate a notice explaining why the action is to be located in the floodplain 

prior to taking action. Finally, new construction in a floodplain must apply accepted floodproofing and flood 

protection to include elevating structures above the base flood level rather than filling in land. 

EO 11990, "Protection of Wetlands," May 24, 1977

EO 11990 directs agencies to consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible development 

in wetlands. Federal agencies are to avoid new construction in wetlands, unless the agency finds there is 

no practicable alternative to construction in the wetland, and the proposed construction incorporates all 

possible measures to limit harm to the wetland. Agencies should use economic and environmental data, 

agency mission statements, and any other pertinent information when deciding whether or not to build in 

wetlands. EO 11990 directs each agency to provide for early public review of plans for construction in 

wetlands. 

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990

The PPA encourages manufacturers to avoid the generation of pollution by modifying equipment and 

processes, redesigning products, substituting raw materials, and making improvements in management 

techniques, training, and inventory control. EO 12856, "Federal Compliance with Right-to Know Laws 

and Pollution Prevention Requirements," requires Federal agencies to comply with the provisions of the 

PPA, and also requires Federal agencies to ensure all necessary actions are taken to prevent pollution. In 

addition, in Federal Register Volume 58 Number 18 (January 29, 1993), the Council on Environmental 

Quality provides guidance to Federal agencies on how to "incorporate pollution prevention principles, 

techniques, and mechanisms into their planning and decision making processes and to evaluate and report 

those efforts, as appropriate, in documents pursuant to NEPA." 

Biological Factors

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973

The ESA establishes a Federal program to conserve, protect and restore threatened and endangered plants 

and animals and their habitats. The ESA specifically charges Federal agencies with the responsibility of 

using their authority to conserve threatened and endangered species. All Federal agencies must insure any 

action they authorize, fund or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an 

endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction of critical habitat for these species, unless the 

agency has been granted an exemption. The Secretary of the Interior, using the best available scientific 

data, determines which species are officially endangered or threatened, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) maintains the list. A list of Federal endangered species may be obtained from the 

Endangered Species Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (703-358-2171). States may also have their 

own lists of threatened and endangered species which may be obtained by calling the appropriate State 
Appendix B-5

Fish and Wildlife office. Some species, such as the bald eagle, also have laws specifically for their 

protection (e.g., Bald Eagle Protection Act). 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, amended in 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986, and 1989

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements treaties and conventions between the United States, Canada, 

Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Unless otherwise 

permitted by regulations, the Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, 

capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, 

imported, transported, carried or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or 

not. The Act also make it unlawful to ship, transport or carry from one state, territory or district to 

another, or through a foreign country, any bird, part, nest or egg that was captured, killed, taken, shipped, 

transported or carried contrary to the laws from where it was obtained; and import from Canada any bird, 

part, nest or egg obtained contrary to the laws of the province from which it was obtained. The U.S. 

Department of the Interior has authority to arrest, with or without a warrant, a person violating the Act.

EO 13186, ìConservation of Migratory Birdsî, January 10, 2001

EO 13186 creates a more comprehensive strategy for the conservation of migratory birds by the Federal 

government. The Order provides a specific framework for the Federal governmentís compliance with its 

treaty obligations to Canada, Mexico, Russia, and Japan. The Order provides broad guidelines on 

conservation responsibilities and requires the development of more detailed guidance in Memoranda of 

Understanding (MOU) within two years of its implementation. The Order will be coordinated and 

implemented by he Fish and Wildlife Service. The MOU will outline how Federal agencies will promote 

conservation of migratory birds. The Order will requires the support of various conservation planning 

efforts already in progress; incorporation of bird conservation considerations into agency planning, 

including NEPA analyses; and reporting annually on the level of take of migratory birds.

EO 11514, "Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality," March 5, 1970

EO 11514 states the President, with assistance from the CEQ, will lead a national effort to provide 

leadership in protecting and enhancing the environment for the purpose of sustaining and enriching 

human life. Federal agencies are directed to meet national environmental goals through their policies, 

programs, and plans. Agencies should also continually monitor and evaluate their activities to protect and 

enhance the quality of the environment. Consistent with NEPA, agencies are directed to share information 

about existing or potential environmental problems with all interested parties, including the public, in 

order to obtain their views. 

Economic and Social Factors

Environmental Quality Improvement Act (EQIA) of 1970

The EQIA ensures each Federal agency conducting or supporting public works activities affecting the 

environment implements policies established under existing law. The EQIA also created the Office 

Environmental Quality to provide professional and administrative staff for the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ). The Director of the Office of Environmental Quality assists and advises the President on 

Federal policies and programs affecting environmental quality. The Office of Environmental Quality 

reviews the adequacy of existing environmental monitoring and predicting systems, and assists Federal 

agencies in appraising the effectiveness of existing and proposed facilities which affect environmental 

quality. 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966

The NHPA sets forth national policy to identify and preserve properties of state, local, and national 

significance. The at establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council), State Historic 

Preservation Officers, and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Council advises the 

President, Congress and Federal agencies on historic preservation issues. Section 106 of the act directs 

Federal agencies to take into account effects of their undertakings (actions and authorizations) on 
Appendix B-6

properties included in or eligible for NRHP. Section 110 sets inventory, nomination, protection and 

preservation responsibilities for federally owned cultural properties. Section 106 of the act is 

implemented by regulations of the Council, 36 CFR Part 800. The Bureau of Land Management in 

Arizona complies with Section 106 according to a national Programmatic Agreement dated March 26, 

1997, supplemented by a Protocol between the BLM Arizona State Director and the Arizona State 

Historic Preservation Officer. 

The agency should coordinate studies and documents prepared under Section 106 with NEPA where 

appropriate. However, NEPA and NHPA are separate statutes and compliance with one does not 

constitute compliance with the other. For example, actions which qualify for a categorical exclusion 

under NEPA, may still require Section 106 review under NHPA. It is the responsibility of the agency 

official to identify properties in the area of potential effects, and whether they are included or eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Section 110 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies 

to identify, evaluate, and nominate historic property under agency control to the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979

ARPA protects archaeological resources on public and Indian lands. It provides felony-level penalties for 

the unauthorized excavation, removal, damage, alteration or defacement of any archaeological resource, 

defined as material remains of past human life or activities which are at least 100 years old. Before 

archaeological resources are excavated or removed from public lands, the Federal land manager must 

issue a permit detailing the time, scope, location and specific purpose of the proposed work. ARPA also 

fosters the exchange of information about archaeological resources between governmental agencies, the 

professional archaeological community, and private individuals. ARPA is implemented by regulations 

found in 43 CFR Part 7.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 and Amendments of 1994

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 recognizes that freedom of religion for all people is 

an inherent right, and traditional American Indian religions are an indispensable and irreplaceable part of 

Indian life. It also recognized the lack of Federal policy on this issue and made it the policy of the United 

States to protect and preserve the inherent right of religious freedom for Native Americans. The 1994 

Amendments provide clear legal protection for the religious use of peyote cactus as a religious sacrament. 

Federal agencies are responsible for evaluating their actions and policies to determine if changes should 

be made to protect and preserve the religious cultural rights and practices of Native Americans. These 

evaluations must be made in consultation with native traditional religious leaders. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990

NAGPRA establishes rights of Indian tribes to claim ownership of certain ìcultural itemsî, defined as 

native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony, held 

or controlled by Federal agencies. Cultural items discovered on Federal or tribal lands are, in order of 

primacy, the property of lineal descendants, if these can be determined, the tribe owning the land where 

the items were discovered, of the tribe with the closest cultural affiliation with the items. Discoveries of 

cultural items on Federal or tribal land must be reported to the appropriate Indian tribe and the Federal 

agency with jurisdiction over the land. If the discovery is made as a result of a land use, activity in the 

area must stop and the items must be protected pending the outcome of consultation with the affiliated 

tribe.

EO 11593, "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment," May 13, 1971

EO 11593 directs the Federal Government to provide leadership in the preservation, restoration, and 

maintenance of the historic and cultural environment. Federal agencies are required to locate and evaluate 

all Federal sites under their jurisdiction or control which may qualify for listing on the National Register 

of Historic Places. Agencies must allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to comment on 
Appendix B-7

the alteration, demolition, sale, or transfer of property which is likely to meet the criteria for listing as 

determined by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. 

Agencies must also initiate procedures to maintain Federally owned sites listed on the National Register. 

EO 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations," February 11, 1994

EO 12898 directs Federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their mission. 

Agencies must identify and address adverse human health and/or environmental effects its activities have 

on minority and low-income populations, and develop agency-wide environmental justice strategies. The 

strategy must list "programs, policies, planning and public participation processes, enforcement, and/or 

rulemakings related to human health or the environment that should be revised to promote enforcement of 

all health and environmental statutes in areas with minority populations and low-income populations, 

ensure greater public participation, improve research and data collection relating to the health of and 

environment of minority populations and low-income populations, and identify differential patterns of 

consumption of natural resources among minority populations and low-income populations." A copy of 

the strategy and progress reports must be provided to the Federal Working Group on Environmental 

Justice. Responsibility for compliance with this EO lies with each Federal agency. 

EO 13007, ìIndian Sacred Sitesî, May 24, 1996

EO 13007 provides that agencies managing Federal lands, to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and 

not inconsistent with agency functions, shall accommodate Indian religious practitionersí access to and 

ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites, shall avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sites, 

and shall maintain the confidentiality of such sites. Federal agencies are responsible for informing tribes 

of proposed actions that could restrict future access to or ceremonial use of, or adversely affect the 

physical integrity of, sacred sites.

EO 13287, ìPreserve Americaî, March 3, 2003

EO 13287 orders the Federal Government to take a leadership role in protection, enhancement, and 

contemporary use of historic properties owned by the Federal Government, and promote 

intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for preservation and use of historic properties. The order 

established new accountability for agencies with regard to inventories and stewardship.
Appendix C-1

APPENDIX C ñ VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 

AND ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE SPECIES

Each vegetation community is fully described by Brown (1982a, 1994). The Brown classification for the 

American Southwest is based on biogeography delineators such as climate, vegetation physiognomy, and 

plant dominants.

Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub

The Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub vegetation is at times referred to as the Arizona Desert or PaloverdeCacti Desert. This vegetation is mainly associated with the Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub. It occurs on 

BLM land in the western part of the state and is the largest vegetation community at 3,280,602 acres. 

Cacti plants are characteristic of this desert scrub and include buckhorn cholla, cane cholla, chain fruit 

cholla, teddy bear cholla, desert Christmas cactus, pencil cholla, Klein cholla, Devilís club ground cholla, 

fishhook pincushion, Thornber pincushion, fish-horn barrel cactus, compass barrel cactus, and saguaro. 

Non-cactus dominant woody plants are blue palo verde, foothill palo verde, ironwood, creosotebush, 

white bursage, whitethorn acacia, limber bush, ocotillo, jojoba, little-leaved ratany, crucifixion thorn, and 

bush buckwheat. Fire is not common in this vegetation community. The Desired Future Conditions are 

for an adequate cover and mix of natural plant species that have good vigor. In terms of fire 

management and fire ecology, the Desired Future Conditions are for fire to control or reduce the 

exotic annual weeds such as red brome and to limit woody vegetation to non-hazardous levels. 

A great majority of this vegetation occurs on slopes and broken ground giving it the name of Upland 

Sonoran Desert Scrub. Elevations range between 984-3,280 ft. Average annual precipitation is unreliable 

and bi-seasonal which averages 12-16 inches with approximately 30ñ60% occurring during summer 

months. Temperatures are warm and characteristic of subtropical deserts with a winter temperature range 

of 9ñ19 oC and summer range of 22ñ27 oC. Soils are variable but predominately sand characteristically 

covered with desert pavement. Historic fire had a return interval of decades to hundreds of years and was 

probably not common in this vegetation community (Rogers and Steele 1980). However, today the risk 

of wildfire may increase after abnormally high annual precipitation which encourages abundant growth of 

red brome and buffelgrass (McAuliffe 1995). 

Numerous mammals occupy this prevalent vegetation community, including mule deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus), desert bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis), javelina (Tayassu tajacu), mountain lion (Felis 

concolor), ringtail cat (Bassariscus astutes), bobcat (Felis rufus), California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus 

californicus), California myotis (Myotis californicus), black-tailed jack-rabbit (Lepus californicus), desert 

cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), 

Arizona pocket mouse (Perognathus amplus), Baileyís pocket mouse (Chaetodipus baileyi), cactus 

mouse (Peromyscus eremicus), white-throated wood rat (Neotoma albigula), gray fox (Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus), the endemic Harris antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus harrisii), and mesquite 

mouse (Peromuscus merriami). This paloverde-cacti-mixed scrub series supports diverse bird 

communities, including many species associated with other vegetation communities that extend into 

suitable habitats in the Arizona Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub. These species include typical thornscrub 

species such as Harrisí hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus), white-winged dove (Zenaida asiatica), elf owl 

(Micrathene whitneyi), pyrrhuloxia (Cardinalis sinuatus), the ìcactusî woodpeckers (gila woodpecker 

(Melanerpes uropygialis), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), and ladder-backed woodpecker (Picoides 

scalaris), curve-billed thrasher (Toxostoma curvirostre), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapilus), 

black-throated sparrow (Amphisipiza bilineata), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Gambelís quail 

(Lophortyx gambelii), gilded flicker (Colaptes chrysoides), ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus 

cinerascens), house finch (Carpodaucus mexicanus), and black-tailed gnatcher (Polioptila melanura). 
Appendix C-2

Many Sonoran and other desert reptiles also add to the wildlife diversity of this vegetation community, 

including species with more limited ranges such as western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), gila monster 

(Heloderma suspectum), Arizona Sonoran coral snake (Micruroides euryxanthus), tiger rattlesnake 

(Crotalus tigris), desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), Mojave green rattlesnake (Crotalus scutulatus 

scutulatus), western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), western diamondback rattlesnake (Crolatus atrox), 

regal horned lizard (Phrynosoma solare), desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos), and ornate tree 

lizard (Urosaurus ornatus) (Brown 1994).

Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub

The Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub vegetation on BLM land occurs mainly in western Arizona. It is the 

second most common vegetation type on BLM land as it occupies 2,727,540 acres. This vegetation type is 

relatively species rich in comparison with the Great Basin Desert Scrub as there is a mixture of different 

shrub species throughout this type. The Sonoran Desert Scrub vegetation is associated with Mohave Desert 

Scrub and Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub. Characteristic shrubs are creosotebush, whitebursage, octillo, 

brittlebrush, foothill palo verde, fourwing saltbush, and Ironwood. Saguaro is a characteristic cactus. 

Western honey mesquite, ironwood, catclaw acacia, blue palo verde, desert willow, and smoketree are 

usually associated with washes. Big galleta grass is an important grass species. Invasive weedy species 

include exotic species such as buffelgrass, red brome, filaree, prickley lettuce, Russian thistle, and London 

rocket. Fire is not common in this vegetation community. The Desired Future Conditions are for an 

adequate cover and mix of natural plant species that have good vigor. In terms of fire management 

and fire ecology, the Desired Future Conditions are for fire to control or reduce the exotic annual 

weeds such as red brome and buffelgrass, and to limit woody vegetation to non-hazardous levels. 

As a result of high temperatures and low precipitation, plant growth is typically opened and simple 

reflecting intense competition for soil water among individuals. Annual precipitation varies between 2 

and 9 inches. Winter temperatures are mild but summer months are hot, and desert pavement is common. 

Vegetation tends to occur along washes and small drainages. Sand dunes are common in some areas. 

Historic fire had a return interval of decades to hundreds of years and was probably not common in this 

vegetation community (Rogers and Steele 1980). However, today the risk of wildfire may increase after 

abnormally high annual precipitation which encourages abundant growth of red brome and buffelgrass 

(McAuliffe 1995).

Mammals typical to this arid region are generally small burrowing mammals, such as mule deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus), desert bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis), javelina (Tayassu tajacu), mountain lion 

(Felis concolor), ringrtail cat (Bassariscus astutes), bobcat (Felis rufu), grey fox (Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus), kit fox (Vulpes velox), white-tailed antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus), 

black-tailed jack rabbit (Lepus californicus), desert pocket mouse (Chaetodipus penicillatus), and desert 

and Merriam Kangaroo rats (Dipodomys deserti and D. merriami), as well as the ubiquitous coyote 

(Canis latrans). This vegetation community is the poorest of the Sonoran Desert for birds, because of its 

sparsely vegetated and structurally shorter habitats. Typical bird species include lesser numbers of aridadapted species, such as the LeConteís thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei), white-winged dove (Zenaida 

asiatica), elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi), black-throated sparrow (Amphisipiza bilineata), loggerhead 

shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapilus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo 

jamaicensis), ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), gilded flicker (Colaptes chysoides), 

mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Gambelís quail (Lophortyx gambelii), and verdin (Auriparus 

flaviceps). Amphibians include Couchís spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus cochii), western green toad (Bufo 

debilis insidior), and Woodhouseís toad (Bufo woodhousii). This vegetation community supports a 

diverse and productive community of reptiles. The sandy plains and dunes of the Lower Colorado River 

Sonoran Desert Scrub support a number of unique sand-adapted lizards and snakes, such as fringe-toed 

lizards (Uma inornata), banded sand snake (Chilomeniscus cinctus), and sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes). 
Appendix C-3

Rocky outcrops, bajadas, talus slopes, washes, and gravel plains each support varied and often different 

herpetofauna communities ñ chuckwalla (Sauromalus ater), desert spiny lizard (Sceloporus magister), 

western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), desert glossy snake (Arizona elegans eburnata), western 

rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), regal horned lizard (Phrynosoma solare), desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma 

platyrhinos), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) (Brown 1994).

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland vegetation is wide spread throughout Arizona and grows on 

1,533,012 acres of BLM land. It is associated with Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub and Great Basin 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland vegetation. The Great Basin Conifer community is a cold-desert, evergreen 

woodland that is characterized by juniper and pinyon pine trees. Juniper trees tend to dominate at 

elevations below 6,560 ft, while pinyon pine dominates at the higher elevations. These trees are shortgrowing and rarely exceed 12 m in height. The canopy cover is mostly opened except on higher 

elevations or mesic sites where tree limbs may interlock. Understory shrubs, forbs, and grasses are 

usually sparse due to aridity and intense competition for soil water from the juniper and pinyon pine trees. 

Important juniper species are Rocky Mountain juniper and Great Basin juniper. The Rocky Mountain 

pinyon pine dominates in Arizona. Associated grasses may include blue gramma, galleta grass, Indian 

ricegrass, western wheatgrass, Junegrass, and several muhleys or dropseeds. Dominant shrubs are big 

sagebrush, snakeweed, rabbitbrush, winterfat, black sagebrush, blackbrush, cliffrose, Apache plume, 

Mormon-tea, fourwing saltbrush, antelope bitterbrush, and yucca. Forbs include several gilia, buckwheat, 

penstemon, lupine, and globemallow species. The mixtures of grasses, shrubs, and forbs depend on soil, 

precipitation, temperature, and disturbance. Cacti include several different species of hedgehog, 

prickleypear, and cholla. 

The Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland is cold-temperate woodland characterized by cold winter 

temperatures with freezing temperatures occurring approximately 150 days per year. Summer 

temperatures are warm. Annual precipitation ranges between 10 and 22 inches, is distributed evenly 

throughout the year, and mainly occurs as snow in winter months. Soils are characteristically shallow and 

rocky. Juniper trees have invaded large areas of former grasslands and sagebrush dominated rangelands. 

Several factors, including fire suppression, climate change, and livestock grazing, may be responsible for 

the juniper invasion. Efforts to remove the invading trees have not been successful. Historic wildfire was 

not common. The sparse understory and openness of the pinyonñjuniper woodlands did not support the 

spread of fire expect on mesic areas where fuel was sufficient (Paysen et al. 2000). However, in modern 

times, many of these woodlands have sufficient fuel loads to support fire because of increased tree 

densities and the establishment of cheatgrass, red brome, buffelgrass and other annual weeds. The 

Desired Future Conditions are that annual weeds such as cheatgrass are controlled, ladder fuels 

and downed woody debris are limited or not present, and juniper and piÒon pine tree densities and 

cover occur at their historic range of variation. 

Only a few vertebrate species are closely tied to or centered within this vegetation community, such as 

mountain lion (Felis concolor), coyote (Canis latrans), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), ringtrail cat 

(Bassariscus astutus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pinyon mouse (Peromyscus truei), bushy-tailed 

woodrat (Neotoma cinerea), Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis), pinyon jay 

(Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), gray flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii) Gray vireo (Vireo vicinior), blackthroated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens), Scottís oriole (Icterus parisorum), wild turkey (Meleagris 

gallopavo), long-eared owl (Asio otus), Cassinís kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), chipping sparrow 

(Spizella passerina), juniper titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi), ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus 

cinerascens), Bewickís wren (Thryomanes bewickii), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), western scrub-jay 

(Aphelocoma californica), common raven (Corvus corax), gray vireo (Vireo vicinior), mountain bluebird 

(Sialia currucoides),Woodhouseís toad (Bufo woodhousii), Great Basin spadefoot toad (Spea 
Appendix C-4

intermontana), and the Striped whiptail (Cnemidophorus velox). A somewhat larger number of the more 

adaptable, and therefore, more widely distributed species also may be found in these habitats year-round 

or seasonally (Brown 1994).

Mohave Desert Scrub

Mohave Desert Scrub vegetation is located on 1,165,687 acres. The Mohave Desert Scrub vegetation 

mixture is intermediate between Great Basin Desert Scrub and Sonoran Desert Scrub. The characteristic 

shrubs include creosotebush, Joshua tree, all-scale, brittlebush, desert holly, white burrobrush, shadscale, 

blackbrush, and many more shrubs. Cacti are well represented and include Engelmann hedgehog, silver 

cholla, Mohave pricklypear, beavertail cactus, many-headed barrel cactus. Ephemeral plants, many of 

which are endemic (approximately 90 out of 250 species), are characteristic of Mohave Desert Scrub. 

These short-lived plants that complete their life cycle in one growing season are divided into two major 

groups: winter and summer annuals. The winter and summer annuals respond to winter and summer 

precipitation, respectively. 

The Mohave Desert Scrub is a warmñtemperate desert with scanty precipitation that occurs mainly during 

winter months. Elevation for the Mohave Desert Scrub is broad in Arizona and ranges from below 980 ft to 

4,000 ft. Precipitation is low with annual values ranging between 2 and 8 inches and occurs with a 

predominately winter and summer bi-modal pattern. Temperatures are relatively low in the winter and high 

in the summer. Temperatures can range from approximately 0 oC in the winter months to 40 oC in summer 

months. Dry lakes are common. Historic wildfire was probably not common in this vegetation community. 

The Desired Future Conditions are for an adequate cover and mix of natural plant species that have 

good vigor. In terms of fire management and fire ecology, the Desired Future Conditions are for fire 

to control or reduce the exotic annual weeds such as red brome and to limit woody vegetation to nonhazardous levels. 

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), desert bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis), javelina (Tayassu tajacu), 

mountain lion (Felis concolor), ringtail cat (Bassariscus astutes), bobcat (Felis rufus), and coyote (Canis 

latrans) are large mammals occupying this vegetation community, while smaller, less wide-ranging 

mammals abound, including Merriamís kangaroo rat (D. merriami), little pocket mouse (Perognathus 

longimembris), white-tailed antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus), desert woodrat (Neotoma 

lepida), southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus), long-tailed pocket mouse (Perognathus 

formosus), cactus mouse (Peromyscus eremicus), Harrisí antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus harrisii)

and canyon mouse (Peromyscus crinitus). Many of the bird and reptile species typical of this vegetation 

community are subspecies or subpopulations of species found in other desert vegetation communities in 

Arizona (Brown 1994). Bird species include black-tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura), great horned 

owl (Bubo virginianus), Phainipepla (Phainopepla nitens), black-throated sparrow (Amphisipiza 

bilineata), cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapilus), common raven (Corvus corax), rock wren 

(Salpinctes obsoletus), ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), loggerhead shrike (Lanius 

ludovicianus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), house finch 

(Carpodaucus mexicanus), and Gambelís quail (Lophortyx gambelii). Reptiles include desert spiny lizard 

(Sceloporus magister), Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), zebra-tailed lizard (Callisaurus 

draconoides), side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana stejnegeri), long-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia 

wislizenii), Mojave rattlesnake (Crotalus scutulatus scutulatus), and coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard (Uma scoparia). 

Great Basin Desert Scrub

Great Basin Desert Scrub vegetation occurs on 1,058,401 acres of BLM land in the Arizona Strip, 

Phoenix, Kingman, and Safford Field Offices. The Painted Desert is predominately Great Basin Desert 
Appendix C-5

Scrub vegetation. It is associated with Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub and Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland vegetation. Species diversity is low with dominant shrubs occupying vast tracts of land. 

Characteristic vegetation is lowñgrowing, widely space hemispherical, non-sprouting shrubs with widely 

spaced bunchgrasses. Dominant shrubs include big sagebrush, black sagebrush, Bigelow sagebrush, 

shadscale, fourwing saltbush, rabbitbrush, winterfat, hopsage, horsebrush, blackbrush, and greasewood. 

Associated grasses may include blue gramma, galleta grass, Indian ricegrass, western wheatgrass, 

Junegrass, and several muhleys or dropseeds. Forbs include several gilia, buckwheat, penstemon, lupine, 

and globemallow species. Cacti number and species in Great Basin Desertscub are relatively few in 

comparison to those found in warm deserts. Cactus plants are small in stature or prostrate and include 

several species of prickly pear, hedge hog, and cholla. The mixtures of the different plants depend on 

soil, precipitation, temperature, and disturbance. Introduced weeds such as cheatgrass, medusahead, red 

brome, Russian thistle, halogeton, filaree, tumble mustard occur on disturbed sites. The introduced 

woody plants, Russian olive and saltcedar are commonly found present in riparian corridors. Historic fire 

intervals range between 5- 100 years depending on the shrub community type and fuel build-up (Paysen 

et al. 2000). Annual weeds such as cheatgrass and red brome have caused an increase in fire reoccurrence and fuel flammability. The Desired Future Conditions are for fire to naturally reduce 

annual weed densities and cover, limit or reduce the invasion of juniper, and for the densities of 

shrubs, such as big sagebrush, to be maintained within their historic range of variability. 

The Great Basin Desert Scrub is part of the Great Basin Desert which is a cold desert characterized by cold, harsh 

winters, hot summers, and low precipitation. Elevation ranges between 3,930 and 7,220 ft. Average annual 

precipitation is approximately less than 10 inches with the majority occurring during the winter months as snow. 

Maximum daily temperature values may remain below freezing during many days of December, January and 

Februaryó the three coldest months of the year. For much of the area, increasing spring and summer temperatures 

coincide with decreasing soil water supplies which limits plant growth.

 

A distinct fauna is centered in this vegetation community. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), bighorn 

sheep (Ovis canadensisi), Townsendís ground squirrel (Spermophilus townsendi), badger (Taxidea taxus), 

long-tailed pocket mouse (Perognathus formosus), and northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys 

leucogaster) are associated with sagebrush communities of the Great Basin Desert Scrub. Large 

ungulates are poorly represented here, however several birds such as the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaeos), 

burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), Sage sparrow (Amphispiza 

belli, Vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), common raven (Corvus corax), rock wren (Salpinctes 

obsoletus), horned lark (Erempphila alpestris), Sayís phoebe (Sayornis saya), western meadowlark 

(Sturnella neglecta), and Brewerís sparrow (Spizella breweri) are characteristic of sagebrush 

communities. The Sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) and Great Basin spadefoot toad (Scophiopus 

intermontanus) are common representative species. A number of reptilian subspecies such as Desert 

horned lizard (Phrynosomo platyrhihnos platyrhinos), and Great Basin and Plateau tiger whiptails 

(Cnemidophorus tigris tigris and C. Tigris septentrionalis) are indicative of Great Basin Desert Scrub and 

a history of evolutionary separation (Brown 1994).

Plains and Great Basin Grassland

The Plains and Great Basin Grassland vegetation occupies 747,509 acres of BLM lands and is located on 

scattered, small land parcels on BLM land mainly in eastern Arizona. This grassland vegetation is 

associated with Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland vegetation at higher elevations and with SemiDesert Grasslands or Great Basin Desert Scrub at lower elevations. The plains grasses are representative 

of the tall, medium, and short prairies of the central plains region. The Great Basin grasses are the 

southern extension from the Great Basin. These grasslands are much altered now but once were a 

continuous cover dominated by various grass species and interspersed with shrubs and forbs. Grazing and 

other agricultural practices have greatly influenced the cover and composition of these grasslands. Fire 
Appendix C-6

with moderate return intervals was important in the ecology of these grasslands (Paysen et al. 2000). 

However, grazing and fire suppression has altered the historic natural fire regime. The Desired Future 

Conditions are for a predominance of perennial grass cover, reduced cover of annual grasses, and 

for fire to naturally inhibit the invasion of woody shrubs such as rabbitbrush, snakeweed, and big 

sagebrush. 

The Plains Grassland vegetation can be divided into tall, medium, and short grassland fractions depending 

on general grass height. Tall grasses occur on sandhills and are dominated by big bluestem and little 

bluestem, and Indiangrass, switchgrass, western wheatgrass, needle-and-thread grass, galleta, and sand 

dropseed. Shinnery oak and midget oak are common shrubs. The short grass areas are dominated by blue 

grama, Indian ricegrass, galleta grass, prairie Junegrass, plains lovegrass, and alkali sacaton. Associated 

shrubs in both the tall and short grass vegetation may include fourwing saltbush, big sagebrush, winterfat, 

soapweed, prairie sumac, rabbitbrush and snakeweed depending on the degree of past grazing and other 

disturbances. Associated forbs may include primrose, bahia, spiderflower, four-oíclock, gaura, mallow, 

coneflower, bricklebush, and aster. Associated cacti include plains prickleypear, hedgehogs, and pin 

cushion. 

Plains and Great Basin grasslands are cold-temperate vegetation and vary in elevation between 4,920 and 

7,545 ft. Precipitation within the plains grasslands occurs mainly during summer-month thunderstorms 

and averages between 12 and 18 inches. The Great Basin grasses occur on drier and colder sites than the 

Plains grasses. Average precipitation for the former ranges between 180ñ300 mm and occurs mainly 

during winter and spring months. 

Grassland vegetation provides a beneficial food source for larger grazing mammals such as the Pronghorn 

(Antilocapra Americana) and Bison (Bison bison). Smaller burrowing mammals include Gunnisonís 

prairie dogs (C. gunnisoni), Plains pocket gopher (Geomys bursarius), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), 

and northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster). The open landscape of the grasslands 

provides suitable habitat for bird species such as western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and eastern 

meadowlark (Sturnella magna) Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), Vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), 

western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), Swainsonís hawk (Buteo swainsoni), burrowing owl (Athene 

cunicularia), lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), common raven (Corvs corax), American kestrel 

(Falco sparvericus), horned lark (Eremophila aepestris), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), ashthroated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus), northern mockingbird 

(Mimus polyglottos), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and black-throated sparrow (Amphisipiza 

bilineata). The burrows created by small mammals are often co-habited by reptiles such as the 

gophersnake (Pituphis melanoleucus sayi), coachwip (Masticophis flagellum), Utah milksnake 

(Lampropeltis triangulum taylori), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) (Brown 1994).

Semidesert Grassland

The Semidesert Grassland is located on 757,668 acres of BLM land mainly in east-central and southeast 

Arizona. This vegetation type is associated with Plains and Great Basin grassland, Madrean Evergreen 

Woodland, and Chihuahuan Desert Scrub. Originally the grasses were perennial bunchgrasses but 

grazing has encouraged the increased growth of sod grasses on areas with deep soil and heavy to 

moderate rainfall. The bunchgrasses have been replaced by annual grasses in areas with low 

precipitation. In some areas with deep soils and well protected from erosion bunchgrasses still cover 

large areas in association with a few shrubs and cacti. However, there are areas where grass cover has 

been reduced as a result of woody plant and cacti colonization. Fire with moderate return intervals was 

important in the ecology of these grasslands (Paysen et al. 2000). However, grazing and fire suppression 

has altered the historic natural fire regime. The Desired Future Conditions are for perennial grasses to 
Appendix C-7

cover its historic range of variability, annual grass cover is reduced, and fire naturally inhibits the 

invasion of woody plants such as juniper, tarbush, whitethorn, and creosotebush. 

Tobosa grass and black grama are the most dominant species in the Semidesert Grassland. Tobosa grass 

is generally found growing on heavy soils that are subject to flooding. Black grama is usually found of 

gravelly, upland soils. The other grasses are numerous and include black grama, sideoats grama, black 

grama, slender grama, chino grama, bush muhly, threeawn species, Arizona cottontop, vine grass, plains 

bristlegrass, plains lovegrass, wolftail, and little bluestem. Lehmann lovegrass was introduced for its 

forage value but has expanded at the expense of more palatable grass species. The assorted shrubs that are 

intermixed among the grasses include mesquite, one-seed juniper, lotebush, all-thorn, Mormon tea, false 

mesquite, catclaw acacia, desert hackberry, barberry, and ocotillo. Tarbush, whitethorn, and creosotebush 

have invaded extensive areas. Cacti and other succulents are important in this vegetation type and they 

include several yucca species, sotols, beargrass, several agrave species, barrel cactus, Turkís head, cane 

cholla, desert Christmas cholla, rainbow cactus, and several prickleypear and hedgehog species. The 

important forbs include mallow, lupine, buckwheat, filaree, spiderling, white-mat, amaranth, and devils 

claw. Invasive grasses include red brome, bristlegrass, foxtail barley, and wild oats which are increasing 

as a result of past grazing practices. 

The Semidesert grassland is a warm temperate grassland ranging in elevation from 2,300-4,920 ft. Most 

of this grassland receives an annual precipitation between 8-12 inches with the majority coming during 

the spring and summer. Winters are mild and freezing temperatures occur generally less than 100 days 

during the year. Summers are warm with several days over 38 oC. 

The Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) and White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are the 

primary large grazing mammals associated with the Semidesert Grassland. The Javelina (Dicotyles 

tajacu), also known as the Collared peccary, can be found in the Semidesert Grassland. Small burrowing 

mammals are primarily represented by the Black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) and various 

burrowing rodents, including the Spotted ground sqirrel (Spermophilus spilosoma), Hispid pocket mouse 

(Perognathus hispidus), antelope jack rabbit (Lepus alleni), and northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys 

leucogaster). Numerous bird species include Swainsonís hawk (Buteo swainsoni), Mourning dove 

(Zenaido mocroura), greater roadrunner (Geococcyc californianus), Sayís phoebe (Sayornis saya) Cactus 

wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), Gambelís quail (Lophortyx gambelii), Black-throated sparrow 

(Amphispiza bilineata), Cassinís sparrow (Aimophila cassinii), Botteriís sparrow (Aimophila botterri), 

brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), Chihushuan raven (Corvus cryptoleucus), scaled quail 

(Callipepla squamata), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). The amphibian Woodhouseís toad 

(Bufo woodhousii) is found within this vegetation community. Reptiles include the Desert box turtle 

(Terrapene ornate luteola), Mexican (western) hognose snake (Heterodon nasicus kennerlyi), the allfemale Desert-grassland whiptail (Cnemidophorus uniparens), and common earless lizard (Holbrookia 

texana scitula) (Brown 1994).

Interior Chaparral

Interior Chaparral vegetation represents 425,287 acres of BLM land mainly in western Arizona. It is 

associated with Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub, Lower Sonoran Desert Scrub, Mohave Desert Scrub, and 

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland vegetation. The vegetation is dominated by shrubs with small, 

thick, evergreen leaves and wide-spreading, deep root systems. Historic fire was an important component 

of the ecosystem (Pase and Brown 1982a). As such, the shrubs are well adapted to fire and reproduce 

readily from heat-scarified seed that is stored in soil for decades. Some species readily sprout from root 

crowns after fire. The dense compacted leafy growth of the shrubs are naturally flammable which leads to 

a high fire hazard. The dominant plant is shrub live oak. Other shrubs are birchleaf mountain mahogany, 

skunkbush sumac, silktassel, desert ceanothus, hollyleaf buckthorn, cliffrose, desert olive, sophora, and 
Appendix C-8

Arizona rosewood. Shrub cover is approximately 60ñ70% which allows grasses such as sideoats grama, 

hairy grama, cane bluestem, plains lovegrass, wolftail, and threeawn to grow in the inter-shrub spaces. 

Forbs are not common except after fire and include penstemon species, Wrightís verbena, goldenrod, 

purple nightshade, hoarhound, and scarlet morning glory. Occasionally, one-seed juniper, emory oak, or 

pinyon pine may occur. Weedy species include filaree and red brome which are increasing because of 

disturbances such as grazing and fire. The Desired Future Conditions are that fire naturally 

maintains shrub cover while reducing annual grass cover, the invasion of woody plants such as 

juniper and piÒon pine are controlled, and the average age of chaparral stands is reduced through 

controlled fire or mechanical treatment. 

Interior Chaparral vegetation is considered a warm-temperate scrubland with elevations mainly between 

3,445-6,070 ft but higher sites occur on drier and warmer slopes. The climate is characterized by cool, 

moist winters and hot, dry summers. The majority of precipitation occurs during winter months when 

plants are dormant or nearly so. 

Small mammals associated with the Interior Chaparral include the Cliff chipmunk (Eutamias dorsalis), 

White-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), White-throated woodrat (Neotoma albiguld), and eastern 

cottontail (Sylviligus floridanus). Nesting birds include the Spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), Virginiaís 

warbler (Vermivora virginiae), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), Crissal thrasher (Toxostoma 

dorsale), black-chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis), rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps), 

bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), Scottís oriole (Icterus 

parisorum), rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus), and canyon wren (Catherpes mexicanus). Amphibians 

common to this vegetation community include Woodhouseís toad (Bufo woodhousii) and Arizona toad 

(Bufo microscaphus). Reptiles common to the Interior Chaparral include the Western threadsnake 

(Leptotyphlops humilis), Glossy snake (Arizona elegans), Smithís black-headed snake (Tantilla 

hobartsmithi), Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), Western fance lizard (S. occidentialis), Arizona 

alligator lizard (Gerrhonorus kingi), and Sonora mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis pyromelana) (Brown 

1994).

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub is part of the vast Chihuahuan Desert and grows on 447,398 acres of BLM land. 

This vegetation is associated with Semidesert Grassland and Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub vegetation on 

BLM land in southeast Arizona. Annual precipitation ranges between 8-12 inches with the majority 

received during the summer. Temperatures are hot in the summer and commonly over 40 oC and freezing 

temperatures occurring during winter months. Elevation varies between 2,300-4,900 ft.. The Chihuahuan 

Desert Scrub is shrub dominated but herbaceous and succulent plants are also an important part of its 

structure. The dominant shrubs are creosotebush, tarbush, and whitehorn acacia cover large expanses of 

outwash plains, low hills, and valleys. Saltbushes occur on fine textured soils and open stands of 

mesquite grow on sandy, wind eroded hummocks. Secondary important plants are mariola, guayule, 

goldeneye, desert zinnias, dogweeds, Condalia species, lechuguilla, ocotillo, and ratany. On the upslopes, 

succulents such as several agrave and yucca species are present along with ocotillo, Coldenia species, 

catclaw, fourwing saltbush, cenizo, condalia, and many more species. Cacti are low growing, prostrate, 

clumped and they include several cholla, prickle pear, hedgehog, Turkís head, pin cushion, and fishhook 

species. Semidesert grasses occur within this desert scrub with importance increasing near their common 

boundary. Fire is not common in this vegetation community. The Desired Future Conditions are for 

an adequate cover and mix of natural plant species that have good vigor. In terms of fire 

management and fire ecology, the Desired Future Conditions are for fire to control or reduce the 

exotic annual weeds such as red brome and to limit woody vegetation to non-hazardous levels. 
Appendix C-9

Southern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys torridus), white-throated woodrat (Neotoma albigula), silky 

pocket nouse (Perognathus flavus), chisel-tooth kangaroo rat (Dipodomys microps), antelope jack rabbit 

Lepus alleni), yellow-nosed cotton rat (Sigmodon ochrognathus), and Ordís and Merriamís kangaroo rats 

(Dipodomys ordii and D. merriami) dominate the mammal populations of the Chihuahuan Desert Scrub. 

Scaled quail (Callipepla squamata), Chihuahuan raven (Corvus cryptoleucus), pyrrhuloxia (Cardinallis 

sinuatus), Swainsonís hawk (Buteo swainsoni), scaled quail (Callipepla squamata), black-throated 

sparrow (Amphisipiza bilineata), common poorwill (Phalaenoptilus nnuttallii), red-tailed hawk (Buteo 

jamaicensis), Verdin (Auripasus flaviceps), cactus wren (Campylorchynchus brunneicapilus), lesser 

nighthawk (Chordeiles acutipenisi), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), ash-throuated flycatcher 

(Myiarchus cinerascens), rock wren (Salpinctes obsoletus), and Gambelís quail (Lophortyx gambelii) are 

considered to be the characteristic bird species of the Chihuahuan Desert Scrub. Amphibians include 

Woodhouseís toad (Bufo woodhousii) and Plains spadefoot toad (Spea bombifrons). Reptiles include the 

exas Banded gecko (Coleonyx brevis), Greater earless lizard (Cophosaurus texanus), and Little striped 

and Marbled whiptails (Cnemidophorus inornatus, C. tigris marmoratus) (Brown 1994).

Riparian

Riparian vegetation is found on 176,927 acres of BLM land in association with streams and rivers. The 

area occupied by riparian vegetation is relatively small in relationship with other vegetation types but 

their biological and ecological importance is larger than their limited geographic occurrence. Riparian 

vegetation is important to wildlife as forage, cover, breeding, and migration corridors. Riparian corridors 

have been greatly disturbed by a variety of activity such as grazing, mining, tree harvesting, and stream 

flow alteration. The Desired Future Conditions are that annual weed cover and density is controlled 

and ladder fuels and downed woody debris are limited or not present. Disturbances such as 

livestock grazing, mining, and off road vehicle travel, that can potentially reduce natural vegetation 

cover and vigor, are managed to maintain adequate cover and mix of natural plant species.

The nature and species composition of the riparian vegetation changes depending on elevation and 

associated upland vegetation community. For example, at high elevation stream gradients are steep with 

relatively high precipitation and cool temperatures, while at low elevations stream gradients are gentle, 

low precipitation, and warm temperatures. At the higher elevations Pacific willow, bigtooth maple, 

narrowleaf cottonwood, box elder, black cherry, sycamore, Arizona walnut, velvet ash and western 

soapberry and red willow are the woody plants. At lower elevations mesquite, Gooddings willow, netleaf 

hackberry, western soapberry, velvet ash, Wrightís Sycamore, and black cherry characterize riparian 

vegetation. Russian olive and saltcedar are two invasive woody plants that have colonized large expanses 

of low- to mid-elevation riparian corridors. 

Large mammals characteristic of riparian woodlands include White-tailed deer and Black bear (Ursus 

americanus). Small rodents include Arizona gray squirrel (Sciurus arizonesis). The River otter (Lutra 

canadensis) is a rare species found in woodlands adjacent to streams. Small carinovres such as Ringtailed 

cat (Bassaricus astutus) and Skunk (Mephitus spp, spilogale putorius) are also found in woodlands 

containing streams. Red bats (Lasiurus borealis) are found in riparian woodlands. Riparian habitats 

typically host the greatest variety, and often numbers, of birds in Arizona, with many being riparianobligate species. Examples of bird species inhabiting riparian woodlands include the Zone-tailed hawk 

(buteo albonotatus), Northern (Bullockís) oriole (Icterus galbula), Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus), Black phoebe (Sayornix nigricans), the Federally endangered Southwestern willow 

flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), brown-crested flycatcher (Myiarchus tyrannulus), yellow warbler 

(Dendroica petechia), Bellís vireo (Vireo bellii), Lucyís warbler (Vermivora luciae), black-chinned 

hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri), summer tanager (Piranga rubrai), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis 

psaltria), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virensi), hooded oriole (Icterus curullatus), Abertís towhee (Pipilo 

aberti), western screech-owl (Otus asio), ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascnes), Gambelís 
Appendix C-10

quail (Lophortyx gambellii), Costaís hummingbird (Calypte costae), and Pyrrhuloxia (Cardinalis 

sinuatus). Arizona treefrog (H. Wringtorum), canyon treefrog (Hyla arenicolor), Woodhouseís toad 

(Bufo woodhousii), tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinumi), and leopard frogs (Rana spp.) are found 

more in interior forest. Ringnecked snake (Diadophis punctatus), black-necked gartersanke (Thamnophis 

cyrtopsis cyrtopsis), Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis eques megalops), Checkered gartersnake 

(Thamnophis marcianus marcianus), narrow-headed gartersnake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus), Arizona 

mud turtle (Kinosternon), yellow mud turtle (Kinosternon),and Sonora mud turtle (Kinosternon 

sonoriensei) are often found in riparian woodlands.

Cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidis), White-footed mouse (peromyscus leucopus), Desert pocket mouse 

(Perognathus penicillatus), and Arizona shrew (Sorix arizonae) are commonly found in the Riparian 

Scrub, as well as in other communities. Phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens), Crissal thrasher (Toxostoma 

dorsale), Verdin (Auriparus flaviceps) and Black-tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura) are 

representative of nesting birds. Red-spotted toad (Bufo punctatus), though found in various communities, 

is quite common to the Riparian Scrub.

Madrean Evergreen Woodland

The Madrean Evergreen Woodland is a warmñtemperate forest located on 67,731 acres of BLM land in 

the southeast and westñcentral Arizona. This vegetation type is associated with Semidesert grassland and 

interior chaparral at low elevations and Montane Conifer Forests at high elevations. Elevations range 

from 3,940 to 7,220 ft. Annual precipitation usually exceeds 15 inches with over half received during the 

growing season. The climate of the Madrean Evergreen Woodland is favorable and thus has supported 

human habitation for hundreds of years. Trees at lower elevations include Emory oak, Arizona white oak, 

alligator bark juniper, one-seeded juniper, and Mexican Pinyon. At the higher elevations Apache pine, 

Arizona pine, pino triste, and Durango pine become prevalent along with the oaks. The important grasses 

are several muhly species, cane bluestem, little bluestem, plains lovegrass, blue grama, sideoats grama, 

hairy grama, tanglehead, and green sprangletop. Forbs include penstemon, lupine, bricklebushe, sage 

species and many other species. The shrubs are indigobushes, buckwheats, roseñmallows, and Louisiana 

sage. Cacti and succulents include many species that are found in the Semidesert Grassland. The Desired 

Future Conditions are that annual weeds such as red brome and buffle grass are controlled, ladder 

fuels and downed woody debris are limited or not present, a high percent of large trees are 

maintained, and tree stand vigor is maintained through controlled fire and mechanical treatments. 

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is a common game species found in the Madrean Evergreen 

Woodland. Common small mammals include Southern pocket gopher (Thomomys umbrinus), Mexican 

fox squirrel (Sciurus nayaritensis), and Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). A number of bird 

species are characterisic of this community, including include Montezuma quail (Cyrtonyx montezumae), 

Acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), Mexican jay (Aphelocoma ultramarina), Bridled titmouse 

(Parus wollweberi), Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Huttonís vireo (Vireo huttoni), Black-throated gray 

warbler (Dendroica nigrescens), black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus), hepatic tanager 

(Piranga flavai), red-shafted flicker (Colaptes cafer), Stellarís jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), dusky-capped 

flycatcher (Myiarchus tuberculifer), Virginiaís warbler (Vermivora virginiae), and whiskered screech-owl 

(Otus trichopsis). The elegant trogon (Trogon elegans) is uncommon but typoicaly found in this habitat 

adjacent to sycamore drainages. The Madrean Evergreen Woodland also has a variety of reptilian 

species, including Rock rattlesnake (Crotalus lepidus), Ridgenose rattlesnake (C. willardi), Mountain 

skink (Eumeces callicephalus), Sonoran mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis pyromelana), Clarkís spiny 

lizard (Sceloporus clarki), and Chihuahuan blackhead snake (Tantilla wilcoxi wilcoxi), black-tailed 

rattlesnake (Crotalus molossus molossus), and Yarrowís spiny lizard (Sceloporus jarrovii jarrovii) 

(Brown 1994).
Appendix C-11

Montane Conifer Forest

The Montane Conifer Forest is a cold-temperate forest occurring on 19,067 acres of BLM lands at an 

elevation range of 6,560-9,840 ft on mountain slopes and ridge tops. Mean annual precipitation ranges 

from 18 to 30 inches with more than 50% being received during the growing season. Snow is common 

during the winter. Ponderosa pine forest is located at the lower elevations and Douglas-fir, white pine, 

limber pine, and aspen grow at the higher elevations in canyons and north-facing slopes. At it lower 

limit, this vegetation is associated with Madrean Evergreen Woodland and Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland vegetation. Ponderosa pine is the most common forest-type on BLM land. Old-growth 

ponderosa pine forests are often park-like with scattered large, old trees and occasional clumps of younger 

trees. The understory is mostly grass, forbs, and a few shrubs. Frequent light fires probably kept the 

forests in this park-like structure as the older trees were relatively fire resistant. The fires would burn 

every three to five years and remove the herbaceous understory and younger trees (Pase and Brown 

1982b). Crown cover of these forests was approximately 50ñ70%. With the absence of fire, many 

ponderosa pine stands are composed of multi-aged trees with the young trees growing in ìdog -hair 

thicketsî. The Desired Future Conditions are that ìdog -hair thicketsî are controlled, ladder fuels 

and downed woody debris are limited or not present, a high percent of large trees are maintained, 

and tree stand vigor is maintained through controlled fire and mechanical treatments. 

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), White-tailed deer (O. virginianus), and Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus 

elaphus) are the primary large mammals in the Montane Conifer Forest. Bats, such as Southwestern 

myotis (Myotis auriculus), Long-eared myotis (M. evotus), Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), are 

common. Small mammals characteristic of this forest community include Merriam shrew (Sorex 

merriami), Nuttallís cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttalli), Abertís tassel-eared squirrel (Sciurus aberti), 

Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), and Deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). The large number of bird 

species includes northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles), Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus), Broad-tailed 

hummingbird (Selasphorus platycercus), Cordilleran flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), Stellerís jay 

(Cyanocitta stelleri), Brown creeper (Certhis familiaris), Western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), Plumbeous 

vireo (Vireo solitarius), Yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), hermit thrush (Catharus 

guttatus), red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensisi), brown creeper (Certhia Americana), broad-tailed 

hummingbird (Selasphorus platycercus), red-faced warbler (Cardellina rubrifrons), hairy woodpecker 

(Piranga ludoviciana), mountain chickadee (Poecile gambeli), red-shafted flicker (Colaptes rafer), 

American robin (Turdus migratorius), band-tailed pigeon (Columba fasciata), dark-eyed junco (Junco 

hyemalis), Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), 

and Pine siskin (Carduelis pinus). Characteristic lizards include Arizona alligator lizard (Gerrhonotus 

kingi), Gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), Western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), Great Plains skink 

(Eumeces obsoletusi), and Wandering gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans vagrans) (Brown 1994).

Game Species and Furbearers

Table C-1 lists Big game species and their habitats occurring on BLM-administered lands in Arizona, 

while Table C-2 lists small game, predator, and furbearing species and their habitats occurring on BLMadministered lands in Arizona. 

Sportfish

Common sportfish in Arizona include Apache trout (Oncorhynchus gilae apache), cutthroat trout (O. 

clark), rainbow trout (O. mykiss), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown trout (Salmo trutta), 

smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), largemouth bass (M. salmoides), striped bass (Morone 

saxatilis), white bass (M. chrysops), yellow bass (M. mississippiensis), arctic grayling (Thymallus 

arcticus), desert sucker (Catostomus insignis), bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus), flathead catfish 
Appendix C-12

(Pylodictis olivaris), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), tilapia (Tilapia nilotica), black bullhead 

(Ameiurus melas), yellow bullhead (A. natalis), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), green sunfish (L. 

cyanellus), redear sunfish (L. microlophus), walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), black crappie (Pomoxis 

nigromaculatus), white crappie (P. annularis), northern pike (Esox lucius), roundtail chub (Gila robusta), 

and yellow perch (Perca flavescens).
 Appendix C-13

Table C1 - Big Game species and their habitats occurring on BLM-administered lands in Arizona

Species Vegetation Community General Habitat Description Arizona BLM Field 

Offices(s)

Mammals

Bighorn Sheep Sonoran Desert Scrub, Mohave 

Desert Scrub, Great Basin Desert 

Scrub (rarely)

Historically, desert bighorn occurred on all mountain ranges and 

plateau slopes in the southern, northern, and western sections of 

Arizona. Desert Bighornís occur from 90 to 4,500 feet elevation, 

found on desert mountain ledges and grassy basins of southern and 

western AZ. The breeding season extends from early June through 

October, but the peak rutting activity takes place in August. The 

gestation period is about six months, and most lambs are born in late 

winter or early spring. Native grasses are important in the bighornís 

diet, although the animals also feed heavily on jojoba and other 

woody plants. Pincushion, barrel, and saguaro cactuses provide 

moisture. Preferred plants vary with habitat quality, locality, and 

species availability.

Desert Bighorn Sheep

Ovis canadensis mexicana

Sonoran Desert Scrub Found in southern portions of Arizona. Phoenix

Tucson

Yuma

Lake Havasu

Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Ovis canadensis nelsoni

Mohave Desert Scrub Found in northeastern portions of Arizona Arizona Strip

Kingman

Phoenix

Lake Havasu

Rocky Mountain Bighorn 

Sheep

Ovis canadensis

Great Basin Desert Scrub Found predominantly on Forest Service lands in high elevation, 

eastern portions of Arizona. Future reintroductions are being 

considered (AGFD Strategic Plan) to expand the current range of 

Rocky Mountain Bighornís.

Safford

Collared Peccary

Pecari tajacu

Sonoran Desert Scrub (AZ Upland 

subdivision), Semi-desert 

Grasslands

The collared peccary, or javelina, is of tropical origin, and is thought 

to have expanded northward as scrub and cactus have replaced 

Arizonaís native grasslands. Javelina are opportunistic feeders, 

eating flowers, fruits, nuts, and berries of a great variety of plants. 

Prickly pear cactus makes up the major portion of their diet 

however, along with agaves, yucca roots, and other desert 

succulents.

Arizona Strip

Kingman

Safford

Tucson

Phoenix

Lake Havasu

Yuma
 Appendix C-14

Species Vegetation Community General Habitat Description Arizona BLM Field 

Offices(s)

Rocky Mountain Elk

Cervus elaphus nelsoni

Montane Conifer Forest; Great 

Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands 

(winter)

Native elk, eliminated sometime prior to 1900, were reintroduced 

back into Arizona in the 1920ís. Mountain meadows, ponderosa 

pine woodlands, spruce-fir forests, and other high-elevation habitats 

between 7,000 and 10,500 feel elevation constitute the elkís 

principal summer range. Elk are rarely found more than one-half 

mile from water and tend to stay on the summer range as long as 

possible, arriving early in the year and remaining until forced down 

by deep snow. Their winter range, which is usually between 5,500 

and 6,500 feel elevation, is more limited in extent and may only 

comprise about 10 percent of the animalís total habitat. Calves are 

born between late May and early June after an 8-month gestation 

period. Elk are grass feeding animals.

Arizona Strip

Tucson

Phoenix

Mule Deer

Odocoileus hemionus

AZ Upland Sonoran Desert Scrub, 

Semi-desert Grassland, Interior 

Chaparral, Montane Conifer 

Forest, Mohave Desert Scrub 

edges, Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodlands (winter)

Mule deer are the most abundant big-game animal in AZ. They can 

be found in most areas of the state, from sparsely vegetated deserts 

upward into high, forested mountains. Mule deer are primarily 

browsers, although they feed largely on forbs and new grass growth 

in the spring and summer. Other major diet items are twigs, bark, 

buds, and oak in northern AZ, with jojoba, buck brush, and mountain 

mahogany being favored in southern AZ.

Arizona Strip

Kingman

Safford

Tucson

Phoenix

Lake Havasu

Yuma

White-tailed Deer

Odocoileus virginianus

Madrean Evergreen woodland, 

Montane conifer Forest, Riparian 

White-tailed deer are most common in the stateís southeastern 

mountains, but range northward to the edge of the Mogollon Rim 

and up into the White Mountains. Whitetails require areas of 

predictable summer precipitation and are most common in oak 

woodlands and on chaparral covered hillsides with oaks and pines. 

Safford

Tucson

Phoenix

Lake Havasu

Yuma

Pronghorn Antelope

Antilocapra americana

Plains & Great Basin Grasslands, 

Lower Colorado River Valley 

subdivision of Sonoran Desert 

Scrub, Mohave Desert Scrub 

edges, Great Basin Desert Scrub ñ

grassland edge

Pronghorn antelope are native to the prairies of North America. In 

Arizona, antelope persist primarily in the northern plains, inhabiting 

high elevation meadows between forested areas. Scattered herds are 

also found in the grasslands of central and southeastern Arizona. 

Antelope breed in August and September, and the young are born in 

May and June. Fawns remain hidden until they are about two to 

three weeks old and strong enough to travel with adults.

Arizona Strip

Kingman

Safford

Phoenix

Lake Havasu

Black Bear

Ursus Americanus

Various (Riparian, Interior 

Chaparral, Madrean Evergreen 

Woodland, Montane Conifer 

Forest)

Black bears in AZ are found in a variety of habitats, including 

subalpine and montane conifer forests, riparian forests, evergreen 

woodlands, and chaparral. Cubs are born in winter dens during 

January. Most Arizona bears hibernate from November through 

March.

Arizona Strip

Safford

Tucson

Phoenix
 Appendix C-15

Species Vegetation Community General Habitat Description Arizona BLM Field 

Offices(s)

Mountain Lion

Puma concolor

Various (AZ Upland Sonoran 

Desert Scrub, Great Basin PinyonJuniper Woodlands, Interior 

chaparral, Madrean Evergreen 

Woodland, Montane Conifer 

forest) 

In AZ, mountain lions are absent only from the extremely arid 

southwest and those areas heavily impacted by human development. 

In general, the distribution of mountain lions in the state corresponds 

with the distribution of the animalís major prey species ñ the mule 

and white-tailed deer.

Arizona Strip

Safford

Tucson

Phoenix

Lake Havasu

Yuma

Birds

Gouldís Turkey

Meleagris gallopavo 

mexicana

Montane Conifer Forest, Riparian Gouldís turkeys have been transplanted and occur currently in low 

numbers in the Galiuro Mountains, and from recent releases in the 

Chiricahua Mountains. Gouldís turkeys in the Huachuca 

Mountains are hunted on a very limited basis. They occasionally 

are found along the San Pedro River, as they are well adapted to 

mature cottonwood riparian habitats.

Tucson

Safford

Merriamís Turkey

Meleagris gallopavo 

merriami

Montane Conifer Forest, Riparian The Merriamís race of wild turkey is found in ponderosa pine 

forests and in riparian deciduous forests and other vegetation types 

at elevations ranging from 3,500 to 10,000 feet. During the winter, 

turkeys congregate in the pinyon pine-oak habitats just below the 

interface with the ponderosa pine forest. During the summer 

months, hens and poults spend much of their time searching for 

bugs and seeds in small meadows and forest openings. As winter 

approaches, the turkeys feed increasingly on acorns, pinyon nuts, 

and other mast crops. Later, with the onset on winter, the birds 

follow pine stringers downslope to snow-free areas where they 

feed on the seeds of ponderosa pine juniper, pinyons, and other 

plants

Arizona Strip

Safford

Tucson

Phoenix

Lake Havasu

Yuma
 Appendix C-16

Table C2. Small game, predator, and furbearing species and their habitats occurring on BLM-administered lands in Arizona.

Species General Habitat Description

Small Game Mammals

Tree Squirrels

No fewer than four species and eight subspecies of tree squirrels can be found in Arizonaís forests. 

Throughout the summer, squirrels feed on the seeds of developing cones as well as on underground fungi or 

truffles that grow under mature pine trees. These foods are the most nutritious for the squirrel, and only when 

they are exhausted does the animal resort to feeding on the inner bark of pine twigs.

Abertís (Tassel-Eared) Squirrel

Sciurus aberti

Most widespread. Exclusively inhabitants of ponderosa pine forests. Close relatives include the blackbellied and white-tailed Kaibab squirrels.

Kaibab Squirrel

Sciurus aberti kaibabensis

Kaibab Squirrels are a subspecies of tassel-eared squirrels. Exclusively inhabits ponderosa pine forests of 

northwestern Arizona.

Abertís Chuska Squirrel

Sciurus aberti chuscensis

Chuska squirrels are a subspecies of tassel-eared squirrels. Found in isolated populations in extreme 

northeastern Arizona on Navajo Reservation.

Arizona Gray Squirrel

Sciurus arizonensis

Inhabits riparian deciduous forests and oak woodlands south of the Mogollon Rim. 

Chiricahua Fox Squirrel

Sciurus nayaritensis chiricahuae

Inhabits riparian deciduous forests and oak woodlands south of the Mogollon Rim. 

Red (Chicaree) Squirrel

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

Restricted to the higher forests of spruce and fire above 8,500 feet elevation.

Cottontails

Although able to breed most of the year, most young are produced in spring when the new growth of plants is 

most available. At other times of the year, selected foods include twigs, newly emerging grasses, weeds, and 

even cacti.

Desert Cottontail

Sylvilagus audubonii

Most abundant, the desert cottontail is found in every county in the state up to elevations exceeding 7,000 

feet.

Eastern Cottontail

Sylvilagus floridanus

Found in the mountains of southeastern and central Arizona where it occupies may of the same habitats as the 

white-tailed deer.

Mountain Cottontail

Sylvilagus nuttalli

Largely restricted to elevations above 7,500 feet from the Mogollon Rim northward.

Small Game Birds

Pigeons and Doves

Band-Tailed Pigeon

Columba fasciata

Bandtails are birds of the mountains and usually nest in mixed conifer forests, ponderosa pine forests, or in 

dense stands of evergreen oaks and pines between 4,500 and 9,100 feel elevation. As migratory birds, 

bandtails are usually only present in AZ from late March through mid-October. After feeding on acorns and 

other fall mast crops, most AZ bandtails migrate southward to the Sierra Madre Occidental in Mexico.
 Appendix C-17

Species General Habitat Description

Mourning Dove

Zenaida macroura

This is the most common and widely occurring game bird in AZ. Mourning doves occur from the lowest 

elevations along the Colorado River upward through forests of ponderosa pines to 8,500 feet. Their staple 

foods throughout the year are primarily small seeds and cultivated grains. Although some doves can be found 

nesting on the ground in open prairies, the best nesting habitats are brushlands and woodlands within the 

Sonoran Desert.

White-winged Dove

Zenaida asiatica

There are two types of white-winged dove populations in AZ, a thinly scattered population found throughout 

the Sonoran Desert and the surrounding countryside, and colonial populations that nest collectively along 

river bottoms adjacent to agricultural areas. Feeding sites are often composed of standing crops of barley, 

maize, and safflower. 

Quail

Scaled Quail

Callipepla squamata

Occurs in semidesert grasslands and the Chihuahuan desert preferring open plains and foothills. Breeding 

occurs in spring after wet winters, but also during the summer months after the monsoons.

Gambelís Quail

Callipepla gambelii

Found throughout the Sonoran and Mojave deserts upward in elevation through semidesert grassland and 

chaparral to the edges of pinyon-juniper woodland and pine forest ñ wherever mesquites and other brushy 

cover occur. Breed only in spring and early summer, breeding intensity and success are directly related to the 

amount of rainfall received during the previous October through March.

(Mearnís) Montezuma Quail

Cyrtonyx montezumae

Prefers oak woodlands and oak savannas in the southeastern potions of the state where grass cover is 

abundant enough to conceal its presence. Nest only after the summer monsoon season, often postponing 

breeding until after the summer solstice when the days are getting shorter.

California Quail

Callipepla californicus

Introduced into Arizona in the 1960ís. Range is small, generally found in higher elevations, in eastern 

portions of Arizona.

Other Upland Game Birds

Chukar

Alectoris chukar

Chukar were introduced into Arizona in the 1940ís and 1970ís, and originated from Turkish stock. Chukar 

are cheatgrass obligates, and currently only persist on game farms and on the Arizona Strip (although are 

occasionally found in other parts of the state). Recent fires on the Arizona Strip have expanded cheat grass, 

causing an upswing in chukar populations.

Sandhill Crane

Crus canadensis

Portions of three distinct populations of sandhill cranes winter in AZ. Cranes from both the Rocky Mountain 

and Mid-Continent populations winter in the Sulphur Springs and Gila River valleys in southeastern Arizona. 

Other sandhills from the Lower Colorado River Valley population winter along the lower Colorado River, 

primarily on the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Cibola National Wildlife Refuge, and Below Gillespie 

Dam on the Gila River. Wintering areas feature shallow-water roosting sites with low or sparse vegetation 

including playa lakes and sandbars along shallow, braided river channels. Another requirement is the close 

proximity of harvested fields of grain. Migration to wintering areas begins in September, with cranes arriving 

on their wintering areas between late September and mid-October. 
 Appendix C-18

Species General Habitat Description

Ring-Necked Pheasant

Phasianus colchicus

Pheasant populations persisting in AZ are largely confined to agricultural areas having relatively high 

humidity (Yuma and Mesa areas) or high enough in elevation to escape the desiccating heat of Sonoran 

Desert Summers (Virgin River and Verde River valleys). Most hens nest by mid-May. Pheasants roost on 

the ground or the low branches of trees. Primary foods are cultivated greens and grains ñ alfalfa, barley 

sprouts, and kernels of maize, barley, and corn.

Blue Grouse

Dendragapus obscurus

Blue grouse in AZ do not migrate downhill during the winter months as they do in the more northern states. 

Instead, they spend the winter roosting in Douglas fir trees, subsisting on needles until spring. The peak of 

mating activity usually takes place during the last part of May or the first week of June. In fall, hens and 

poults feed at the edge of mountain meadows and in old burns on forbs.

Waterfowl

Arizonaís waterfowl can be grouped into two general classes ñ ducks, geese, and coots that nest in the state; 

and those that merely winter here or migrate through. Arizonaís principal waterfowl nesting grounds are the 

natural and modified marshes found above the Mogollon Rim and in the White Mountains. Most of these 

marshlands depend on winter precipitation and snowmelt rather than groundwater, and are generally seasonal, 

and are mostly located 7,000 feet elevation. Farm ponds and other small wetlands in the southeastern part of 

the state are also inhabited by species of Mexican ducks. The principal duck species nesting in AZ are 

mallards (especially in the White Mountains), pintails, cinnamon teal, redheads, and ruddy ducks. 

Additionally, smaller numbers of gadwall, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, and ring-necked ducks are 

also found in northern marshes. Less common are canvasbacks, shovelers, and American widgeons.

Predators

Bobcat

Felis rufus

Found throughout the state in broken and brushy country. Their principal prey is cottontail rabbits and 

jackrabbits, but they also take both smaller and larger mammals, as well as snakes and lizards. The bobcat is 

also classified as a furbearer.

Coyote

Canis latrans

Coyotes are widespread opportunists, feeding mainly on small mammals, but also on carrion, bird eggs, 

insects, and vegetable matter such as manzanita and juniper berries. 

FOXES

Common Gray Fox

Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Most common fox in AZ, occurring wherever there is wooded country and broken terrain. Favor brushy 

habitats, rock piles and desert washes, although they also will climb trees.

Red Fox

Vulpes vulpes

Uncommon in AZ, occurring only in the northeast potions of the state.

Kit Fox

Vulpes macrotis

Found in valleys and on sandy plains it the southwestern deserts, spending much of their day underground.

SKUNKS All skunks are generally omnivores, feeding on grasshoppers, worms, mice, lizards, bulbs, carrion, and 

garbage.

Hog-Nosed Skunk

Conepatus leuconotus leuconotus

Occurs primarily in southeastern AZ. Breeds in late winter and produces young in April or May.

Hooded Skunk

Mephitis macroura

Generally confined to southeastern Arizona. Breeds in late winter and produces young in April or May. 
 Appendix C-19

Species General Habitat Description

Striped Skunk

Mephitis mephitis

Most common in AZ, with a widespread distribution, living everywhere but the most extreme deserts, and are 

often found near water. Breeds in late winter and produces young in April or May.

Western Spotted Skunk

Spilogale gracilis

Mostly occurs in rocky, mountainous areas. Breeds in late September or early October.

Furbearers

American Badger

Taxidea taxus

Widely distributed, the badger occurs almost anywhere in AZ having ground suitable to dig and excavate 

cavities. Badgers feed primarily on burrowing rodents such as prairie dogs and ground squirrels, but also will 

take snakes, lizards, and insects on occasion. Breeding season is in summer, with young not being born until 

the following spring.

American Beaver

Castor canadensis

Beavers, at one time found nearly everywhere in AZ, now occur only along some permanent streams, certain 

shallow lakes, and a few dirt-lined canals. Diet is almost exclusively plant material with the bark of 

cottonwoods, aspen, and willow trees being especially important. Other reported foods include tamarisk, 

mesquite, and the roots of aquatic plants such as cattail and bulrush. 

Common Raccoon

Procyon lotor

A relatively common animal along Arizonaís perennial streams, lakes, and reservoirs. Raccoons are 

omnivores, eating whatever food is available ñ aquatic insect larvae, beetle grubs, fish, frogs, crayfish, wild 

fruits, and carrion. 

Long-Tailed Weasel

Mustela frenata

There is only one species of weasel in Arizona, restricted to high elevation sites such as those on the Kaibab 

Plateau, Mogollon Rim, Chuska-Lukachukai Mountains, and southern Arizonaís sky islands. Predators, 

feeding on cottontails, rodents, birds, snakes, and lizards. Weasels breed in midsummer, with young not born 

until the following spring.

Muskrat

Ondatra Zibethica

Muskrats can be found along most of Arizonaís perennial rivers and permanent marshes. Primarily a 

vegetarian, the muskrat feeds on aquatic grasses, pondweed, cattail roots, and the leaves of seep willows. 

Muskrats in AZ are reported to breed year round, but most of the young are born between March and 

October.

Ringtail

Bassariscus astutus

Most common in the rocky regions of southern and western AZ with the Grand Canyon being especially 

favored. The only areas devoid of ringtails are flat, alluvial valleys, as the animal prefers boulder-strewn 

hillsides, canyons, rock-walled houses, and mine shafts. Diet consists of small mammals, birds, lizards, and 

insects, as plant fruits.

River Otter 

Lontra canadensis

Once found throughout the Salt, Verde, LCR, and probably also the Gila and Colorado River systems, this 

species is now confined to the Verde River and its major tributaries where it was reintroduced in the early 

1980ís. Diet includes fish, water birds, turtles, eggs, and crayfish. 

All habitat information for Tables D1 and D2 was summarized from: 

Hunt Arizona 2002 Edition ñ Survey, Harvest and Hunt Data for Big and Small Game. Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Additional range information on Bighorn Sheep, Gouldís Turkey, Tassel-Eared Squirrels, Chukar, and California Quail was derived from pers.comms.:

Brian Wakeling, Big Game Specialist, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Mike Rabe, Small Game Specialist, Arizona Game and Fish Department

 
Appendix D-1

Appendix D ñ

Proposed Conservation Measures

for

Arizona BLM Statewide LUP Amendment and EA

for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management

1.0 Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities

1.1 Wildland Fire Suppression (FS)

The following Conservation Measures will be implemented during fire suppression operations unless 

firefighter or public safety, or the protection of property, improvements, or natural resources, render them 

infeasible during a particular operation. Each Conservation Measure has been given an alphanumerical 

designation for organizational purposes (e.g., FS-1). Necessary modifications of the Conservation 

Measures or impacts to Federally protected species and habitat during fire suppression operations will be 

documented by the Resource Advisor, and coordinated with the USFWS.

FS-1 Protect known locations of habitat occupied by Federally listed species. Minimum Impact 

Suppression Tactics (M.I.S.T.) will be followed in all areas with known Federally protected 

species or habitat [Appendix U, Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations 2003, or 

updates].

FS-2 Resource Advisors will be designated to coordinate natural resource concerns, including 

Federally protected species. They will also serve as a field contact representative (FCR) 

responsible for coordination with the USFWS. Duties will include identifying protective 

measures endorsed by the Field Office Manager, and delivering these measures to the Incident 

Commander; surveying prospective campsites, aircraft landing and fueling sites; and performing 

other duties necessary to ensure adverse effects to Federally protected species and their habitats 

are minimized. On-the-ground monitors will be designated and used when fire suppression 

activities occur within identified occupied or suitable habitat for Federally protected species.

FS-3 All personnel on the fire (firefighters and support personnel) will be briefed and educated by 

Resource Advisors or designated supervisors about listed species and the importance of 

minimizing impacts to individuals and their habitats. All personnel will be informed of the 

conservation measures designed to minimize or eliminate take of the species present. This 

information is best identified in the incident objectives.

FS-4 Permanent road construction will not be permitted during fire suppression activities in habitat 

occupied by Federally protected species. Construction of temporary roads is approved only if 

necessary for safety or the protection of property or resources, including Federally protected 

species habitat. Temporary road construction should be coordinated with the USFWS, through 

the Resource Advisor.

FS-5 Crew camps, equipment staging areas, and aircraft landing and fueling areas should be located 

outside of listed species habitats, and preferably in locations that are disturbed. If camps must be 

located in listed species habitat, the Resource Advisor will be consulted to ensure habitat damage 

and other effects to listed species are minimized and documented. The Resource Advisor should 

also consider the potential for indirect effects to listed species or their habitat from the siting of 

camps and staging areas (e.g., if an area is within the water flow pattern, there may be indirect 

effects to aquatic habitat or species located off-site).
Appendix D-2

FS-6 All fire management protocols to protect Federally protected species will be coordinated with 

local fire suppression agencies that conduct fire suppression on BLM-administered lands to 

ensure that the agency knows how to minimize impacts to Federally protected species in the area.

FS-7 The effectiveness of fire suppression activities and Conservation Measures for Federally 

protected species should be evaluated after a fire, when practical, and the results shared with the 

USFWS and AGFD. Revise future fire suppression plans and tactical applications as needed and 

as practical.

1.2 Fuels Treatments (prescribed burning and other fuels management) (FT)

The following Conservation Measures are mandatory when implementing wildland fire use, prescribed

fires, and the proposed vegetation treatments (mechanical, chemical, biological):

FT-1 Biologists will be involved in the development of prescribed burn plans and vegetation treatment 

plans to minimize effects to Federally protected species and their habitats within, adjacent to, and 

downstream from proposed project sites. Biologists will consider the protection of seasonal and 

spatial needs of Federally protected species (e.g., avoiding or protecting important use areas or 

structures and maintaining adequate patches of key habitat components) during project planning 

and implementation.

FT-2 M.I.S.T. will be followed in all areas with known Federally protected species or habitats.

FT-3 Pre-project surveys and clearances (biological evaluations/assessments) for Federally protected 

species will be required for each project site before implementation. All applicable Conservation 

Measures will be applied to areas with unsurveyed suitable habitat for Federally protected 

species, until a survey has been conducted by qualified personnel to clear the area for the 

treatment activity.

FT-4 Use of motorized vehicles during prescribed burns or other fuels treatment activities in suitable or 

occupied habitat will be restricted, to the extent feasible, to existing roads, trails, washes, and 

temporary fuelbreaks or site-access routes. If off-road travel is deemed necessary, any crosscountry travel paths will be surveyed prior to use and will be closed and rehabilitated after the 

prescribed burn or fuels treatment project is completed.

FT-5 As part of the mandatory fire briefing held prior to prescribed burning, all personnel (firefighters 

and support personnel) will be briefed and educated by Resource Advisors or designated 

supervisors about listed species and the importance of minimizing impacts to individuals and 

their habitats. All personnel will be informed of the Conservation Measures designed to 

minimize or eliminate take of the species present.

1.3 Rehabilitation and Restoration (RR)

RR-1 When rehabilitating important areas for Federally listed species that have been damaged by fire or 

other fuels treatments, the biologist will give careful consideration to minimizing short-term and 

long-term impacts. Someone who is familiar with fire impacts and the needs of the affected 

species will contribute to rehabilitation plan development. Appropriate timing of rehabilitation 

and spatial needs of Federally listed species will be addressed in rehabilitation plans.

RR-2 Seed from regionally native or sterile non-native species of grasses and herbaceous vegetation 

will be used in areas where reseeding is necessary following ground disturbance to stabilize soils 

and prevent erosion by both wind and water.

RR-3 Sediment traps or other erosion control methods will be used to reduce or eliminate influx of ash 

and sediment into aquatic systems.

RR-4 Use of motorized vehicles during rehabilitation or restoration activities in suitable or occupied 

habitat will be restricted, to the extent feasible, to existing roads, trails, or washes, and to 

temporary access roads or fuelbreaks created to enable the fire suppression, prescribed burn, or 
Appendix D-3

fuels treatment activities to occur. If off-road travel is deemed necessary, any cross-country 

travel paths will be surveyed prior to use and will be closed and rehabilitated after rehabilitation 

or restoration activities are completed.

RR-5 All temporary roads, vehicle tracks, skid trails, and off-road vehicle (ORV) trails resulting from 

fire suppression and the proposed fire management activities will be rehabilitated (water bars, 

etc.), and will be closed or made impassible for future use.

RR-6 Burned area emergency rehabilitation (BAER) activities and long-term restoration activities 

should be monitored, and the results provided to the USFWS and AGFD. Section 7 consultation 

for BAER activities will be conducted independently, if necessary.

RR-7 (Recommended) Develop public education plans that discourage or restrict fires and fire-prone 

recreation uses during high fire-risk periods. Develop brochures, signs, and other interpretive 

materials to educate recreationists about the ecological role of fires, and the potential dangers of 

accidental fires.

2.0 Conservation Measures For Fire Management Activities In Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (RA)

2.1 Wildland Fire Suppression and Rehabilitation

The following Conservation Measures will be implemented during fire suppression operations in riparian, 

wetland, or aquatic habitats, unless firefighter or public safety, or the protection of property, 

improvements, or natural resources, render them infeasible during a particular operation. Necessary 

modifications of the Conservation Measures or impacts to Federally protected species and habitat during 

fire suppression operations will be documented by the Resource Advisor, and coordinated with the 

USFWS. The BLMís 1987 policy statement on riparian area management defines a riparian area as ìan 

area of land directly influenced by permanent water. It has visible vegetation or physical characteristics 

reflective of permanent water influence. Lakeshores and streambanks are typical riparian areas. 

Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation 

dependent upon free water in the soil.î

RA-1 During wildfire suppression, apply M.I.S.T. within riparian areas. Fire suppression actions in 

riparian areas should be prioritized to minimize damage to stands of native vegetation from 

wildfire or suppression operations. To the extent possible, retain large, downed woody materials

and snags that are not a hazard to firefighters. 

RA-2 Fire suppression and rehabilitation in riparian corridors will be coordinated with the Resource 

Advisor or qualified biologist approved by BLM.

RA-3 Site-specific implementation plans that include project areas with Federally protected aquatic or 

riparian-obligate species will specify fire management objectives and wildland fire suppression 

guidance, taking into account the special concerns related to these species.

RA-4 In riparian areas, use natural barriers or openings in riparian vegetation where possible as the 

easiest, safest method to manage a riparian wildfire. Where possible and practical, use wet 

firebreaks in sandy overflow channels rather than constructing firelines by hand or with heavy 

equipment.

RA-5 Construction or development of a crossing for motorized vehicles across a perennial stream will 

not be permitted, unless an established road already exists or where dry, intermittent sections 

occur.

RA-6 Avoid the use of fire retardants or chemical foams in riparian habitats or within 300 feet of 

aquatic habitats, particularly sites occupied by Federally protected species. Apply operational 

guidelines as stated in the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations 2003 (or 
Appendix D-4

updates), ìEnvironmental Guidelines for Delivery of Retardant or Foam Near Waterways,î 

Chapter 8 (pp. 8-13 through 8-15).

RA-7 Priority for placement of fire camps, fire staging areas, and aircraft landing or refueling sites will 

be outside riparian areas or river/stream corridors.

RA-8 When using water from sources supporting Federally protected species, care must be taken to 

ensure adverse impacts to these species are minimized or prevented. Unused water from fire 

abatement activities will not be dumped in sites occupied by Federally protected aquatic species 

to avoid introducing non-native species, diseases, or parasites.

RA-9 If water is drafted from a stock tank or other body of water for fire suppression, it will not be 

refilled with water from another tank, lakes, or other water sources that may support non-native 

fishes, bullfrogs, crayfish, or salamanders.

RA-10 Use of containment systems for portable pumps to avoid fuel spills in riparian or aquatic systems 

will be required.

RA-11 (Recommended) Develop and implement restoration plans for affected riparian or aquatic areas, 

including long-term monitoring, to document changes in conditions in the riparian zone and 

watershed that maintain flood regimes and reduce fire susceptibility. Monitor stream water 

quality and riparian ecosystem health to determine effects of wildfire and fire management 

activities. Coordinate efforts and results with the USFWS and AGFD.

2.2 Fuels Treatments (prescribed fire; mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments)

The following Conservation Measures are mandatory when implementing wildland fires use, prescribed 

fires, and the proposed vegetation treatments (mechanical, chemical, biological) within riparian, wetland, 

or aquatic habitats.

RA-12 All Conservation Measures for wildland fire suppression (RA-1 to RA-11, Section 2.1) also 

apply to fuels treatment activities (prescribed fire; mechanical, chemical, and biological 

treatments) in riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats. 

RA-13 Fire management treatments within or adjacent to riparian and aquatic habitats will be designed to 

provide long-term benefits to aquatic and riparian resources by reducing threats associated with 

dewatering and surface disturbance, or by improving the condition of the watershed and 

enhancing watershed function.

RA-14 For priority fire/fuels management areas (e.g., WUIs) with Federally protected species or 

designated critical habitat downstream, BLM biologists and other resource specialists, as 

appropriate, in coordination with USFWS and AGFD, will determine:

A) The number of acres and the number of projects or phases of projects to occur within one 

watershed per year.

B) An appropriately-sized buffer adjacent to perennial streams in order to minimize soil and ash 

from entering the stream.

C) Where livestock grazing occurs in areas that have been burned, specialists will determine 

when grazing can be resumed. Such deferments from grazing will only occur when necessary 

to protect streams from increased ash or sediment flow into streams.1

 1

 The Interagency Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook, Exhibit 4-

2 ,BLM supplemental guidance, page 5 of 9 

(http://fire.r9.fws.gov/ifcc/ESR/handbook/4PolicyGuidance.htm) establishes the following policy 

for livestock exclusion following burns:

Exclusion of livestock is critical for the recovery of burned vegetation or establishment 

and maintenance of new seedings and use of these areas should not be permitted until the 

vegetation recovers or is established. Both re-vegetated and, burned but not re-vegetated
Appendix D-5

If agreement cannot be reached or treatment will not meet fuel reduction objectives, BLM will reinitiate consultation.

3.0 Species Specific Conservation Measures

In addition to the general Conservation Measures listed in Sections 1.0 and 2.0, the following speciesspecific Conservation Measures will be applied during wildfire suppression to the extent possible, and 

will be required during fuels treatment activities (wildland fire use, prescribed fire, vegetation treatments). 

Necessary modifications of the Conservation Measures or impacts to Federally protected species and 

habitat during fire suppression operations will be documented by the Resource Advisor, and coordinated 

with the USFWS.

3.1 Amphibians [Chiricahua leopard frog (FT); Relict leopard frog (FC)]

AM-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0).

AM-2 For fire management sites with habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog, unsurveyed sites will be 

considered occupied unless surveyed prior to project implementation.

AM-3 Install sediment traps, as determined by a Resource Advisor or qualified biologist approved by 

BLM, upstream of tanks and ponds occupied by Chiricahua leopard frogs in order to minimize 

the amount of ash and sediment entering the water. Consultation with a qualified biologist during 

the planning phase will aid in determining sediment trap installation requirements (see 

Conservation Measures FT-1 and FT-3).

AM-4 All personnel performing fire management activities at any creek crossing will be informed of the 

potential presence of Chiricahua leopard frogs, their status, and the need to perform their duties to 

avoid impacts to the frog and its habitat.

AM-5 Except as needed in emergency situations to abate immediate fire threat or loss of life or property, 

no water will be drafted for fire suppression from bodies of water known to be occupied by the 

Chiricahua leopard frog.

 

areas, will be closed to livestock grazing for at least two growing seasons following the 

season in which the wildfire occurred to promote recovery of burned perennial plants 

and/or facilitate the establishment of seeded species. Livestock permittees must be 

informed of the closure early during the plan preparation process, and livestock closures 

will be made a condition or term on the grazing license or permit through the issuance of 

grazing decision (see 43 CFR 4160). Livestock closures for less than two growing 

seasons may be justified on a case-by-case basis based on sound resource data and 

experience. Livestock management following seedling establishment and/ or burned area 

recovery should maintain both non-native and/or native species to meet land use 

(including Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management) or 

activity plan objectives.

Our authority to make these types of changes is in the regulations at 43 CFR 4110.3-3(b). 
Appendix D-6

3.2 Birds

3.2.1 Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (FE, Proposed CH)

FP-1 Treatment of riparian habitat, Sonoran desert/desertscrub, or mesquite-invaded grasslands under 

4,000 feet in elevation that may support nesting cactus ferruginous pygmy owls will only occur 

during the non-nesting season of August 1 to January 31, unless pre-project surveys indicate the 

area does not support pygmy-owls or mitigation plans approved by the USFWS have alleviated 

negative consequences.

FP-2 Develop mitigation plans in coordination with the USFWS for fuels treatment projects 

(prescribed fire; vegetation treatments) that may adversely affect cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls 

or their habitat. Mitigation plans for prescribed fire shall limit to the extent practicable the 

possibility that fire would spread to riparian habitats. Mitigation plans will be approved by the 

USFWS.

FP-3 (Recommended) To the extent possible, maintain habitat features necessary to support breeding 

populations of the pygmy-owl within their historic range and review ongoing fire management 

activities for effects on essential habitat features needed by cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls. 

Modify activities, where necessary, to sustain the overall suitability of the habitat for the owls. 

Priority will be given to activities in or near occupied or recently (w/in the last 10 years) occupied 

habitat.

3.2.2 California brown pelican (FE)

BP-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0).

3.2.3 California Condor (FE; 10(j) species)

The following Conservation Measures apply to BLM-administered lands within the designated 10(j) area 

for California condors:

CC-1 All helicopter dip tanks will be covered when not in use.

CC-2 Any presence of condors in the project area will be recorded and reported immediately to the 

Resource Advisor.

CC-3 If condors arrive at any area of human activity associated with fire suppression or fuels treatment 

projects (wildland fire use, prescribed fire, vegetation treatments), the birds will be avoided. The 

assigned Resource Advisor or a qualified wildlife biologist approved by BLM will be notified, 

and only permitted personnel will haze the birds from the area.

CC-4 All camp areas will be kept free from trash.

CC-5 Aircraft use along the Vermilion Cliffs or sites where condors are attempting to breed or roost 

will be minimized 

CC-6 The Resource Advisor will contact the Peregrine Fund daily (at 520-606-5155 or 520-380-4667) 

to check on locations of condors during fire suppression or fuels treatment activities involving 

aviation. This information will be communicated to the Incident Commander and aviation 

personnel.

CC-7 If any fire retardant chemicals must be used in areas where condors are in the vicinity (see CC-6), 

the application area will be surveyed and any contaminated carcasses will be removed as soon as 

practical to prevent them from becoming condor food sources.
Appendix D-7

CC-8 Aircraft will remain 400 meters from condors in the air or on the ground unless safety concerns 

override this restriction. If airborne condors approach aircraft, aircraft will give up airspace to the 

extent possible, as long as this action does not jeopardize safety.

CC-9 Smoke from wildland fire use and prescribed fire projects will be managed to minimize negative 

effects to condor breeding. A potential wildland fire use event will not be initiated, or an existing 

event will be modified or terminated, to prevent or stop significant amounts of smoke, or smoke 

that will remain in place for an extended period of time, or chronic smoke events, from occurring 

in area(s) where condors are attempting to breed.

CC-10 BLM will adhere to the air quality standards set by the Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality.

3.2.4 Northern aplomado falcon (FE)

AF-1 If aplomado falcons are reestablished or are discovered on public lands, and they nest in a fuels 

management project area, BLM will implement temporary closures to human access and project 

implementation (wildland fire use, prescribed burning, vegetation treatments) within 1⁄2 mile of 

nest sites during the breeding season. Wildland fire use and prescribed burning will be conducted 

in a manner to ensure nest sites are more than 1⁄2 mile from downwind smoke effects.

3.2.5 Southwestern willow flycatcher (FE)

WF-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0).

WF-2 Except where fires are active in occupied habitat, minimize unnecessary low-level helicopter 

flights during the breeding season (April 1 ñ September 30). Approach bucket dip sites at a 90-

degree direction to rivers to minimize flight time over the river corridor and occupied riparian 

habitats. Locate landing sites for helicopters at least o mile from occupied sites to avoid impacts 

to willow flycatchers and their habitat.

WF-3 Minimize use of chainsaws or bulldozers to construct firelines through occupied or suitable 

habitat except where necessary to reduce the overall acreage of occupied habitat or other 

important habitat areas that would otherwise be burned.

WF-4 Implement activities to reduce hazardous fuels or improve riparian habitats (prescribed burning or 

vegetation treatments) within occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat for southwestern willow 

flycatchers only during the non-breeding season (October 1 to March 31).

WF-5 Avoid developing access roads that would result in fragmentation or a reduction in habitat 

quality. Close and rehabilitate all roads that were necessary for project implementation (see RR5).

WF-6 Prescribed burning will only be allowed within 1⁄2 mile of occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat 

when weather conditions allow smoke to disperse away from the habitat when birds may be 

present (breeding season of April 1 ñ September 30).

WF-7 Vegetation treatment projects adjacent to occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat will only be 

conducted when willow flycatchers are not present (October 1 ñ March 31). 

3.2.6 Yuma clapper rail (FE)

CR-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0).

CR-2 Any prescribed fire or vegetation treatment project in occupied or suitable marsh habitat would 

only occur between September 1 and March 15 to avoid the Yuma clapper rail breeding and 

molting seasons.
Appendix D-8

CR-3 Mechanical removal of overstory habitat (Tamarisk) could occur as early as August 15, after the 

breeding season for Yuma clapper rails.

CR-4 Herbicide application would not occur in Yuma clapper rail habitat and drift-inhibiting agents 

would be used to assure that the herbicide does not enter adjacent marsh areas.

3.2.7 Bald eagle (FT)

BE-1 No human activity within 1⁄2 mile of known bald eagle nest sites between December 1 and June 

30. 

BE-2 No tree cutting within o mile of known nest trees.

BE-3 No human activity within o mile of known bald eagle winter roost areas between October 15 and 

April 15.

BE-4 No tree cutting within the area immediately around winter roost sites as determined by BLM 

biologists.

BE-5 No helicopter or aircraft activity or aerial retardant application within 1⁄2 mile of bald eagle nest 

sites between December 1 and June 30 or winter roost sites between October 15 and April 15.

BE-6 Conduct prescribed burn activities outside of nesting season in a manner to ensure nest and winter 

roost sites are more than 1⁄2 mile from downwind smoke effects.

BE-7 Provide reasonable protective measures so fire prescription or fuels treatment will not consume 

dominant, large trees as identified by the Resource Advisor or qualified biologist approved by 

BLM within 1⁄2 mile of known nests and roosts of bald eagles Pre-treatment efforets should 

provide reasonable protection of identified nesting and roosting trees (see Conservation Measure 

FT-4).

3.2.8 Mexican spotted owl (FT, CH) 

SO-1 BLM wildlife biologists will be involved early in the decision-making process for fuels 

management treatments (appropriately managed wildfires, prescribed fires, vegetation treatments) 

that are planned within suitable habitat or designated critical habitat for Mexican spotted owls 

(MSO).

SO-2 Suitable habitat and designated critical habitat for MSO will be surveyed prior to implementing 

prescribed fire or vegetation treatment activities on BLM-administered lands to determine MSO 

presence and breeding status. These fire management activities will only be implemented within 

suitable or critical habitat if birds are not present. If a spotted owl is discovered during these 

surveys, BLM will notify the USFWS to reinitiate consultation and will determine any additional 

Conservation Measures necessary to minimize or eliminate impacts to the owl.

SO-3 If a MSO is discovered during fire suppression or fuels treatment activities (wildland fire use, 

prescribed fire, vegetation treatments), the Resource Advisor or a qualified wildlife biologist will 

document the find and assess potential harm to the owl and advise the Incident Commander or 

project crew boss of methods to prevent harm. The information will include for each owl the 

location, date, and time of observation and the general condition of the owl. The Resource 

Advisor or biologist will contact the appropriate USFWS office, and BLM will reinitiate 

consultation for the fire suppression or project activities.

SO-4 Within MSO critical habitat designated on BLM-administered lands:

A) To minimize negative effects on the primary constituent elements of critical habitat, 

appropriately managed wildlfires, and prescribed fires will be managed primarily as lowintensity fires, with only scattered high-intensity patches. The BLMís objective will be to 

limit mortality of trees greater than 18 inches dbh to less than 5 percent, occasionally up to 10 

percent, within critical habitat.

B) If fireline construction is necessary during fire suppression, appropriately managed wildfires, 

or prescribed fires, BLM will minimize the cutting of trees and snags larger than 18 inches 
Appendix D-9

dbh, and no trees or snags larger than 24 inches dbh will be cut unless absolutely necessary 

for safety reasons.

C) For mechanical vegetation treatments within critical habitat, BLM will minimize the cutting 

of trees and snags larger than 18 inches dbh, and no trees or snags larger than 24 inches dbh 

will be cut unless absolutely necessary for safety reasons.

D) Critical habitat disturbed during fire suppression or fuels treatment activities, such as fire 

lines, crew camps, and staging areas, will be rehabilitated to prevent their use by vehicles or 

hikers. Fire line rehabilitation will include pulling soil, duff, litter, woody debris, and rocks 

back onto the line to bring it up to grade and to make it blend in with the surrounding area. 

Such rehabilitation will be inspected one year after the event to ensure effectiveness.

SO-5 The following measures will be followed in suitable habitat (occupied or unoccupied) whenever 

consistent with objectives to reduce hazardous fuels:

A) Manage mixed-conifer and pine-oak forest types to provide continuous replacement nest 

habitat over space and time (Table III.B.1 of the Recovery Plan for Mexican Spotted 

Owl).

B) Incorporate natural variation, such as irregular tree spacing and various stand/patch sizes, 

into management prescriptions and attempt to mimic natural disturbance patterns.

C) Maintain all species of native vegetation in the landscape, including early seral species. 

To allow for variation in existing stand structures and provide species diversity, both 

uneven-aged and even-aged systems may be used as appropriate.

D) Allow natural canopy gap processes to occur, thus producing horizontal variation in stand 

structure.

E) Within pine-oak types, fuels treatment activities should emphasize retaining existing 

large oaks and promoting the growth of additional large oaks.

F) Retain all trees >24 inches dbh.

G) Retain hardwoods, large down logs, large trees, and snags.

Emphasize a mix of size and age classes of trees. The mix should include large mature trees, 

vertical diversity, and other structural and floristic characteristics that typify natural forest 

conditions.

SO-6 The effects of fire suppression and fuels treatment activities on MSO and their habitat, and the 

effectiveness of these Conservation Measures, will be assessed after each fire event or fuels 

treatment project by the Resource Advisor or local biologist to allow evaluation of these 

guidelines and to allow the USFWS to track the species environmental baseline. Prescriptions for 

appropriately managed wildfires, prescribed fires, and vegetation treatments will be adjusted, if 

necessary.

3.2.9 Yellow-billed cuckoo (FC)

YC-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0).

3.3 Fish

The following Conservation Measure will be implemented for all Federally protected fish species that 

may be affected by the Proposed Action during fire suppression to the extent possible, and are mandatory 

for wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and vegetation treatment activities:

FI-1 BLM will cooperate with other agencies to develop emergency protocols to decrease the impacts 

of fire suppression and fuels treatment activities on Federally listed fish species. Emergency 

protocols will include appropriate agency contacts, a list of facilities that can hold fish, sources of 
Appendix D-10

equipment needed (e.g., sampling gear, trucks) and how to address human health and safety 

issues.

In addition to implementing FI-1, the following species-specific Conservation Measures will also apply:

3.3.1 Bonytail chub (FE,CH)

BC-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0) to eliminate adverse effects from fire management activities to available 

spawning habitat along shorelines (i.e., occupied reaches and critical habitat).

3.3.2 Desert pupfish (FE,CH)

DP-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0) for occupied reaches and critical habitat.

DP-2 Conduct prescribed burns such that no more than one-half of the watershed of each desert pupfish 

site is burned in a two-year period (excluding buffers to the streams and/or spring habitats) and 

repeat treatments at greater than two-year intervals.

DP-3 Monitor, where practical, for fish kill immediately following the first runoff event after 

prescribed fires in watersheds containing desert pupfish.

DP-4 When considering which creek crossings to use for fire management activities, avoid crossings 

that are known to be occupied by desert pupfish.

3.3.3 Gila topminnow (FE)

GT-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0).

GT-2 Conduct prescribed burns such that no more than one-half of the watershed of each gila 

topminnow natural or reintroduction site is burned in a two-year period (excluding buffers to the 

streams and/or spring habitats) and repeat treatments at greater than two-year intervals.

GT-3 Monitor for fish kill, where practical, immediately following the first runoff event after 

prescribed fires in the watersheds containing gila topminnows.

GT-4 When considering which creek crossings to use for fire management activities, avoid crossings 

that are known to be occupied by Gila topminnow, when possible.

GT-5 Develop mitigation plans in coordination with the USFWS for each fuels management project 

(prescribed fire; vegetation treatments) that may adversely affect the gila topminnow. Mitigation 

plans for prescribed fire will limit to the extent practicable the possibility that fire would spread to 

riparian habitats. Mitigation plans will be approved by the USFWS.

GT-6 (Recommended) Cooperate with the USFWS and AGFD to identify site-specific measures, such 

as prescribed fires in grassland vegetation types to improve watershed conditions (e.g., in the 

Cienega Creek watershed), to protect populations of gila topminnow from other resource program 

impacts.

3.3.4 Razorback sucker (FE, CH)

RS-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0) to minimize adverse effects from fire management activities to available 

spawning habitat along shorelines (i.e., occupied sites and critical habitat).

RS-2 Project boundaries for fire management activities will avoid or protect sensitive habitats of the 

razorback sucker.
Appendix D-11

3.3.5 Virgin River chub (FE, CH)

VC-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0) for the stretch of the Virgin River within Arizona.

3.3.6 Woundfin (FE, CH; Future 10(j) populations)

WM-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0) for the stretch of the Virgin River within Arizona.

3.3.7 Little Colorado spinedace (FT, CH)

LS-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0) to minimize adverse effects from fire management activities on BLMlands to occupied reaches and critical habitat on adjacent lands.

3.3.8 Loach minnow (FT, CH); Spikedace (FT, CH)

LM-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0) for occupied reaches and critical habitat.

LM-2 All reasonable efforts shall be made to minimize disturbance within the wetted areas of Aravaipa 

Creek or tributary channels.

LM-3 No heavy equipment will be used off-road during wildfire suppression and fuels treatment 

projects within the wetted areas of Aravaipa Creek.

LM-4 All reasonable efforts will be made to ensure that no pollutants, retardants, or chemicals 

associated with wildfire suppression and fuels treatment projects or activities enter surface waters 

of reaches occupied by these two fish species.

LM-5 Develop mitigation plans in coordination with the USFWS for each fuels management project 

(prescribed fire; vegetation treatments) that may adversely affect the loach minnow and 

spikedace. Mitigation plans for prescribed fire will limit to the extent practicable the possibility 

that fire would spread to riparian habitats. Mitigation plans will be approved by the USFWS.

LM-6 (Recommended) Cooperate with the USFWS and AGFD to identify site-specific measures, such 

as prescribed fires in grassland vegetation types to improve watershed conditions (e.g., in the 

Aravaipa Creek watershed), to protect populations of loach minnow and spikedace from other 

resource program impacts.

3.3.9 Gila chub (PE, Proposed CH) 

GC-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0) for occupied reaches and proposed critical habitat.

GC-2 When considering which creek crossings to use for fire management activities, avoid crossings 

that are known to be occupied by Gila chub, when possible.

GC-3 (Recommended) Cooperate with the USFWS and AGFD to identify site-specific measures, such 

as prescribed fires in grassland vegetation types to improve watershed conditions (e.g., in the 

Cienega Creek watershed), to protect populations of gila chub from other resource program 

impacts.
Appendix D-12

3.4 Flowering Plants

The following Conservation Measures for known locations and unsurveyed habitat of all Federally 

protected plant species within the planning area will be implemented during fire suppression to the extent 

possible, and are mandatory for wildland fire use, prescribed fire and vegetation treatment activities:

PL-1 Known locations and potential habitat for plant populations will be mapped to facilitate planning 

for wildland fire use, prescribed fires, and vegetation treatments, and to ensure protection of these 

populations during fire suppression.

PL-2 BLM will coordinate with FWS to delineate buffer areas around plant populations prior to 

prescribed fire and vegetation treatment activities. BLM will coordinate with USFWS during any 

emergency response and wildland fire use activities to ensure protection of plant populations 

from fire and fire suppression activities.

PL-3 During fire suppression, wildland fire use, and prescribed fire in habitat occupied by Federally 

protected plant species, no staging of equipment or personnel will be permitted within 100 meters 

of identified individuals or populations, nor will off-road vehicles be allowed within the 100-

meter buffer area, unless necessary for firefighter or public safety or the protection of property, 

improvements, or other resources (see FS-7). One of the primary threats to many of these plant 

species is trampling/crushing from personnel and vehicles.

PL-4 No prescribed burning will be implemented within 100 meters of identified locations or 

unsurveyed suitable habitat for Federally protected and sensitive plant populations unless 

specifically designed to maintain or improve the existing population.

There are no additional species-specific conservation measures for the following Federally protected plant 

species: Arizona Cliffrose (Purshia subintegra), Brady pincushion cactus (Pediocactus bradyi), 

Holmgren Milk Vetch (Astragalus homgreniorum), Nichol Turkís Head Cactus (Echinocactus 

horizonthalonius var. nicholii), Peebles Navajo Cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. peeblesianus), 

Pima Pineapple Cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina), Jones Cycladenia (Cycladenia humilis 

var. jonesii), Siler Pincushion Cactus (Pediocactus sileri), AcuÒa Cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus

var. acunensis), Fickeisen Plains Cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae).

3.4.1 Huachuca Water Umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva ) [FE, CH]

In addition to implementing PL-1 through PL-4, the following species-specific Conservation Measures 

will also apply:

WU-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0).

WU-2 (Recommended) The BLM should fund additional surveys for the water umbel on BLM lands, 

and support research on the ecology of the species. Surveys may support the use of prescribed 

fire in areas not occupied by the Huachuca Water Umbel.

3.4.2 Kearneyís Blue Star (Amsonia kearneyana) [FE]

In addition to implementing PL-1 through PL-4, the following species-specific Conservation Measures 

will also apply:
Appendix D-13

KB-1 No mechanical or chemical vegetation manipulation will be authorized by BLM, and no planting 

or seeding of nonnative plants will occur in the Brown Canyon watershed within the Baboquivari 

allotment.

KB-2 Planning and management for wildfire suppression in the watershed of Brown Canyon will be 

coordinated with the USFWS. 

3.5 Mammals

3.5.1 Black-footed ferret (FE, 10(j) species)

If black-footed ferrets are discovered or re-established on public lands, then the following Conservation 

Measures will apply:

BF-1 No heavy equipment operation off of existing roads within o mile of prairie dog towns having 

documented occurrence of black-footed ferrets. 

BF-2 No aerial retardant application within 300 feet of prairie dog towns having documented 

occurrence of black-footed ferrets.

BF-3 No surface disturbance of prairie dog towns having documented occurrence of black-footed 

ferrets. 

BF-4 In Apache and Navajo counties, prairie dog complexes suitable for black-footed ferrets within o 

mile of proposed project sites will either be surveyed prior to project implementation or will be 

protected using measures BF-1 through BF-3, as if ferrets were present.

3.5.2 Hualapai Mexican vole (FE)

HV-1 All treatment areas will be surveyed for Hualapai Mexican vole occupancy prior to fuels 

management treatments (prescribed fire, vegetation treatments) in order to determine project 

modifications and/or avoidance and protection of occupied areas. Until surveyed, all potential 

vole habitat is considered occupied. Areas not considered suitable (e.g., areas dominated by thick 

pine needles and duff) will also be surveyed prior to treatment to protect existing snag habitat for 

potential future use by Mexican spotted owls.

HV-2 Fuels management treatments (prescribed fire or vegetation treatments), construction of fire 

breaks, and/or staging areas for fire suppression or fuels management treatments will not be 

located within a vole use area. Occupied vole sites within proposed burn areas will be protected 

by firebreaks, precision ignition of fire around such sites, or total avoidance of the area. Fire 

plans will incorporate site-specific features (e.g., rock outcroppings, game trails, etc.), fire 

behavior, and professional judgment to determine the most appropriate method to protect 

occupied vole habitat. Additionally, monitoring of fuel moisture and use of the appropriate 

minimum impact suppression tactics will be used to reach the desired objective at each site.

HV-3 To minimize impacts to Hualapai Mexican voles during the breeding season, prescribed burns 

and vegetation treatments in occupied or potential vole habitat will be implemented only between 

September 1 and March 15. Treatment in chaparral habitat will occur during the latter part of this 

time frame, in winter and/or early spring. These prescribed fires will follow the summer 

monsoon period to encourage additional herbaceous growth. Post-monsoon burns would help 

avoid the dry conditions that could result in extremely hot fires that reduce the recruitment of 

grasses and forbs. Areas not considered suitable for Hualapai Mexican voles (e.g., dominated by 

thick pine needles and duff) may be burned prior to September 1, if surveyed prior to treatment.

HV-4 Provide a 75- to 100-foot, minimum, unburned vegetation buffer between fuels treatment sites 

and riparian and dry wash areas to decrease erosion into and sedimentation of the occupied or 

potentially occupied vole habitat. Within ponderosa pine treatment sites, use of dry washes as a 
Appendix D-14

fire line may be appropriate and result in less disturbance than construction of a cup trench above 

the wash. Under such circumstances, BLM will prepare the wash as a fire line by raking duff and 

removing by hand dead branches and other debris.

HV-5 The terms and conditions from the Pine Lake Wildland/Urban Interface Biological Opinion 

(BLM Kingman Field Office; Consultation No. 2-21-01-F-241) continue to apply to the Pine 

Lake project.

3.5.3 Jaguar (FE)

JA-1 Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0) to eliminate adverse effects to jaguars that may occur in dense riparian 

habitats on BLM-administered lands.

JA-2 Maintain dense, low vegetation in major riparian or xero-riparian corridors on BLM-administered 

lands in identified locations south of Interstate 10 and Highway 86. Locations will be identified 

in site-specific fire management plans.

3.5.4 Lesser long-nosed bat (FE)

LB-1 Instruct all crew bosses (wildfire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and vegetation 

treatments) in the identification of agave and columnar cacti and the importance of their 

protection. 

LB-2 Prior to implementing any fuels treatment activities (prescribed fire, vegetation treatments), preproject surveys will be conducted for paniculate agaves and saguaros that may be directly 

affected by fuels management activities.

LB-3 Protect long-nosed bat forage plants -- saguaros and high concentrations of agaves -- from 

wildfire and fire suppression activities, and from modification by fuels treatment activities 

(prescribed fire, vegetation treatments), to the greatest extent possible. ìAgave concentrationsî 

are contiguous stands or concentrations of more than 20 plants per acre. Avoid driving over 

plants, piling slash on top of plants, and burning on or near plants. Staging areas for fire crews or 

helicopters will be located in disturbed sites, if possible.

LB-4 No seeding/planting of nonnative plants will occur in any wildfire rehabilitation site or fuels 

treatment site with paniculate agaves or saguaros.

LB-5 A mitigation plan will be developed by the Bureau in coordination with the USFWS for 

prescribed fires or fuels management projects (mechanical, chemical, biological treatments) 

within 0.5 mi of bat roosts or in areas that support paniculate agaves or saguaros. The mitigation 

plan will ensure that effects to bat roosts and forage plants are minimized and will include 

monitoring of effects to forage plants. The plan will be approved by the USFWS.

LB-6 (Recommended) BLM personnel should examine concentrations of agaves (including shindagger 

ñ A. schottii) within each proposed fuels treatment area, and blackline or otherwise protect from 

treatments any significant concentrations of agaves that appear to be amidst fuel loads that could 

result in mortality greater than 20 percent (>50% for A. schottii). BLM personnel should use 

their best judgment, based on biological and fire expertise, to determine which significant agave 

stands are prone to mortality greater than 20 percent (>50% for A. schottii) (see Conservation 

Measures FT-1 and FT-3).

LB-7 (Recommended) BLM should continue to support and cooperate in the investigations of agave 

relationships to livestock grazing, and of the effects of prescribed fire on paniculate agaves. 
Appendix D-15

3.5.5 Mexican gray wolf (FE; 10(j) species)

If Mexican gray wolves are re-established on public lands, then the following Conservation Measures will 

apply:

GW-1 No human disturbance associated with fire management activities will be within one mile of a 

den site from April1 to June 30.

GW-2 No human disturbance associated with fire management activities will be within one mile of 

known rendezvous sites from April 1 to June 30.

3.5.6 Ocelot (FE)

No species-specific Conservation Measures developed.

3.5.7 Sonoran pronghorn (FE)

No species-specific Conservation Measures developed.

3.5.8 Black-tailed prairie dog (FC)

If black-tailed prairie dogs are re-established on public lands, then the following Conservation Measures 

will apply:

PD-1 No heavy equipment operation off of existing roads within o mile of black -tailed prairie dog 

colonies

PD-2 No aerial retardant application within o mile of black -tailed prairie dog colonies.

PD-3 No surface disturbance of black-tailed prairie dog colonies.

3.6 Reptiles

3.6.1 Desert tortoise, Mojave population (FT)

DT-1 Take appropriate action to suppress all wildfires in desert tortoise habitat, based on preplanned 

analysis and consistent with land management objectives, including threats to life and property. 

Full suppression activities will be initiated within key desert tortoise habitat areas identified in 

site-specific Fire Management Plans.

DT-2 Suppress all wildfires in desert tortoise habitat with minimum surface disturbance, in accordance 

with the guidelines in Duck et al. (1995) and the 1995 programmatic biological opinion on fire 

suppression on the Arizona Strip (2-21-95-F-379).

DT-3 Pre-position suppression forces in critical areas during periods of high fire dangers.

DT-4 As soon as practical, all personnel involved in wildfire suppression (firefighters and support 

personnel) will be briefed and educated about desert tortoises and the importance of protecting 

habitat and minimizing take, particularly due to vehicle use. Fire crews will be briefed on the 

desert tortoise in accordance with Appendix II of Duck et al. (1995).

DT-5 If wildfire or suppression activities cannot avoid disturbing a tortoise, the Resource Advisor or 

monitor will relocate the tortoise, if safety permits. The tortoise will be moved into the closest 

suitable habitat within two miles of the collection site that will ensure the animal is reasonably 

safe from death, injury, or collection associated with the wildfire or suppression activities. The 

qualified biologist will be allowed some discretion to ensure that survival of each relocated 
Appendix D-16

tortoise is likely. If the extent or direction of movement of a fire makes sites within two miles of 

the collection site unsuitable or hazardous to the tortoise or biologists attempting to access the 

area, the tortoise may be held until a suitable site can be found or habitat is safe to access and not 

in immediate danger of burning. The Resource Advisor will contact the USFWS Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (AESFO) as soon as possible concerning disposition of any 

animals held for future release. Desert tortoises will not be placed on lands outside the 

administration of the Federal government without the written permission of the landowner. 

Handling procedures for tortoises, including temporary holding facilities and procedures, will 

adhere to protocols outlined in Desert Tortoise Council (1994).

DT-6 Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick desert tortoise, initial notification must be made to the 

appropriate USFWS Law Enforcement Office within three working days of its finding. Written 

notification must be made within five calendar days and include the date, time, and location of the 

animal, a photograph, and any other pertinent information. The notification will be sent to the 

Law Enforcement Office with a copy to the AESFO

DT-7 Care must be taken in handling sick or injured animals to ensure effective treatment and care, and 

in handling dead specimens to preserve biological material in the best possible state. If possible, 

the remains of intact desert tortoises will be placed with educational or research institutions 

holding appropriate State and Federal permits. If such institutions are not available, the 

information noted above will be obtained and the carcass left in place. Arrangements regarding 

proper disposition of potential museum specimens will be made with the institution prior to 

implementing the action. Injured animals should be transported to a qualified veterinarian by an 

authorized biologist. Should any treated desert tortoise survive, the USFWS should be contacted 

regarding final disposition of the animal.

DT-8 The Resource Advisor or monitor(s) will maintain a record of all desert tortoises encountered 

during fire suppression activities. This information will include for each desert tortoise: 1) 

locations and dates of observation; 2) general condition and health, including injuries and state of 

healing, and whether animals voided their bladders; 3) location moved from and to; and 4) 

diagnostic markings (i.e., identification numbers of marked lateral scutes). No notching of scutes 

or replacement of fluids with a syringe is authorized.

DT-9 Prior to moving a vehicle, personnel will inspect under the vehicle for tortoises. If a tortoise is 

found under the vehicle, the tortoise will be allowed to move away from the vehicle on its own 

accord, if possible. Otherwise an individual will move the tortoise to a safe locality in accordance 

with FS-2 and DT-5. 

DT-10 Off-road vehicle activity will be restricted to the minimum necessary to suppress wildfires. 

Vehicles will be parked as close to roads as possible, and vehicles will use wide spots in roads or 

disturbed areas to turn around. Whenever possible, a biologist or crewperson trained to recognize 

tortoises and their shelter sites will precede any vehicle traveling off-road to direct the driver 

around tortoises and tortoise burrows. Whenever possible, local fire-fighting units should provide 

direction and leadership during off-road travel because of their expertise and knowledge of area 

sensitivities.

DT-11 Fire-related vehicles will drive slow enough to ensure that tortoises on roads can be identified and 

avoided.

DT-12 Fire crews or rehabilitation crews will, to the extent possible, obliterate off-road vehicle tracks 

made during fire suppression in tortoise habitat, especially those of tracked vehicles, to reduce 

future use.

DT-13 To the maximum extent practical, campsites, aircraft landing/fueling sites, and equipment staging 

areas will be located outside of desert tortoise habitat or in previously disturbed areas. If such 

facilities are located in desert tortoise habitat, 100 percent of the site will be surveyed for desert 

tortoises by a qualified biologist approved by BLM, whenever feasible. Any tortoises found will 

be moved to a safe location in accordance with FS-2 and DT-5. All personnel located at these 

facilities will avoid disturbing active tortoise shelter sites.
Appendix D-17

DT-14 Elevated predation by common ravens or other predators attributable to fire suppression activities 

will be reduced to the maximum extent possible. Work areas, including campsites, 

landing/fueling sites, staging areas, etc. will be maintained in a sanitary condition at all times. 

Waste materials at those sites will be contained in a manner that will avoid attracting predators of 

desert tortoises. Waste materials will be disposed of at an appropriate waste disposal site. 

ìWasteî means all discarded matter including, but not limited to, human waste, trash, garbage, 

refuse, oil drums, petroleum products, ashes, and equipment.

DT-15 Backfiring operations are permitted where necessary in desert tortoise habitat. Burning out 

patches of identified habitat within or adjacent to burned areas is not permitted as a standard fire 

suppression measure unless necessary for firefighter or public safety or to protect property, 

improvements, or natural resources.

DT-16 Use of foam or retardant is authorized within desert tortoise habitat.

DT-17 Rehabilitation of vegetation in tortoise habitat will be considered, including seeding, planting of 

perennial species, etc.

DT-18 Recovery of vegetation will be monitored, including establishing and monitoring paired plots, 

inside and outside burned areas in tortoise habitat. Recovery plans will be coordinated with the 

USFWS and AGFD.

DT-19 The effectiveness of wildfire suppression activities and desert tortoise Conservation Measures 

will be evaluated after a wildfire. Procedures will be revised as needed.

3.6.2 New Mexico ridgenose rattlesnake (FT)

RN-1 To the extent possible, minimize surface disturbing activities from fire suppression and fuels 

treatment activities within New Mexico ridgenose rattlesnake habitat on BLM-administered lands 

in the southern Peloncillo Mountains, particularly during active periods for snakes (July through 

October). 

RN-2 Prior to using wildland fire for resource benefit, cool season (November ñ March) prescribed fire 

or other fuel treatments should be used to reduce unnatural fuel loads within suitable habitat to 

avoid catastrophic fires and loss of canopy cover.

RN-3 All fires that occur outside of prescriptions that will result in low intensity, low severity burns 

will be fully suppressed within or near suitable New Mexico ridge-nose rattlesnake habitat.

3.7 Conservation Agreement and Management Plan Species

3.7.1 Flat-tailed horned lizard

No species-specific Conservation Measures developed.

3.7.2 Paradine (Kaibab) plains cactus

Implement PL-1 and PL-2 to protect known locations during fire suppression to the extent 

possible and during the fuels treatment activities.

3.7.3 Virgin spinedace

Implement the Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitats (Section 2.0) for the stretch of the Virgin River within Arizona.
Appendix D-18

3.7.4 Desert tortoise, Sonoran population

Implement the Conservations Measures for Desert Tortoise, Mojave population, as appropriate, 

for fire suppression and fuels treatment activities (prescribed fire, vegetation treatments), 

excluding requirements for notification to USFWS.

REFERENCE:

Duck, T.A., T.C. Esque, and T.J. Hughes. 1995. Fighting wildfire in desert tortoise habitat: 

considerations for land managers. Proc. Desert Tortoise Counc. Symp. 1994:58-67. 
Appendix E-1

Appendix E - Wild Free-Roaming Horses 

and Burros Herd Management Areas

There are 4 Herd Areas (HA) and 7 Herd Management Areas (HMA) managed by BLM in Arizona. 

These areas are the Tassi-Gold Butte HMA (Arizona Strip FO); Big Sandy HMA, Black Mountain HMA, 

and Cerbat HA (Kingman FO); Harquahala HA, Lake Pleasant HMA and Painted Rock HA (Phoenix

FO); Alamo HMA and Havasu HMA (Lake Havasu FO); and Cibola-Trigo HMAand Little Harquehala

HA (Yuma FO). Five of the areas are described in the Affected Environment section of current Land Use 

Plans. Descriptions of the other six areas are presented below. 

Alamo

The Alamo HMA lies in west central Arizona, on lands adjoining Alamo Lake and portions of the Bill

Williams, Santa Maria and Big Sandy rivers. The Alamo contains 341,034 acres of land. The wild burros 

roam freely throughout the area, which is largely steep, rocky and rugged. The lower areas contain gentle 

slopes cut with broad sandy washes. Sonoran Desert vegetation, such as palo verde and ironwood trees, 

dominate the washes. Summers are hot, with occasional temperatures exceeding 120 degrees. Wild burros 

share this habitat with desert bighorn sheep, desert mule deer, coyotes, fox, jackrabbits and a variety of

small mammals. Other animals that can be found in the area include reptiles such as the desert tortoise

and several species of lizards and rattlesnakes. The area is also home to a variety of birds, including the

bald eagle and southwestern willow flycatcher. 

Harquahala

The Harquahala HA lies six miles south of Aguila, Arizona, on Eagle Eye Road, 25 miles west of

Wickenburg, Arizona, on US Highway 60. The wild burros inhabit the Harquahala Mountains and

surrounding foothills and valleys. The Harquahala HA consists of 126,000 acres and extends from the 

Harquahala Mountains on the north side to the Big Horn Mountains on the south. The Harquahala

Mountains is a relatively low granite range, surrounded by broad desert basins. The average precipitation 

is about five inches a year with summer temperatures exceeding 125 degrees. The desert vegetation

consists of typical upper Sonoran Desert which includes palo verde, ironwood, ocotillo, mesquite,

creosote bush, triangle leaf bursage and the giant saguaro cactus. In addition, the Harquahala Mountains

contain pockets of Interior Chaparral Subdivision of the Warm-Temperate scrublands typified by jojoba,

shrub live oak, sugar sumac and mountain mahogany. Because of the high diversity of species, the area

has been identified as a Special Botanical Area. The area contains numerous springs that provide water

for the wild burros, livestock and other wildlife. Riparian vegetation such as cottonwood, willow, cattails 

and bullrush occur at many of the spring sites. Wild burros share their habitat with other wildlife such as

desert bighorn sheep, desert mule deer, bobcat, mountain lion, coyotes, gray fox, Gambel's quail, dove,

various bat species, desert tortoise and other non-game species. 

Cibola-Trigo

Spreading across the border of Arizona and California, the Cibola-Trigo HMA extends from Imperial

Dam, west of the Colorado River, to Walters Camp in California. Located primarily between US 95 and

the Colorado River and Interstates 8 and 10, the HMA is about 20 miles north of Yuma, Arizona. The

Cibola-Trigo HMA is comprised of nearly one million acres of the lower Sonoran Desert. During the

summer months, the burros are concentrated along the Colorado River, or other permanent water source.

In late fall or early winter, depending upon rainfall, they disperse throughout the HMA. They begin their

movement back to the river about May or June as the temperatures rise and the Mesquite beans mature.

The wild horses remain near a permanent water source year round. In Arizona, the Cibola-Trigo HMA

supports both wild burros and horses. While in southwestern California, only the wild burro roams

between the river and the Chocolate/Mules and Picacho Herd Management areas. The HMA in California 

is dominated by intricately dissected alluvial fans and bajadas adjacent to the Colorado River. The
Appendix E-2

uplands support sparse stands of creosote, ocotillo and palo verde. The many drainages emptying into the 

river support dense stands of desert trees including palo perde, ironwood, catclaw acacia and mesquite.

Immediately adjacent to the river are thick stands of salt cedar, phragmites and arrow weed. Further from 

the river, the bajadas give way to rugged volcanic mountains. Winters in the HMA are typically mild, but 

summers can be brutal with temperatures exceeding 125 degrees. Wild burros share this habitat with

desert bighorn sheep and desert mule deer. Other animals that can be found in the area include desert

tortoise, several species of rattle snakes and a variety of birds and lizards. 

Havasu

The Havasu Herd Management Area lies in west central Arizona along the Colorado and Bill Williams

rivers. The HMA is split into two units by the Colorado River. The Havasu HMA is also adjacent to the

Chemeheuvi Herd Management Area on the California side. The Havasu HMA consists of 450,790 acres 

of Lower Colorado Sonoran Desert. The Arizona side of the HMA is 372,568 acres, while the California

side of the HMA encompasses 78,222. In this area, some burros possess the shoulder cross characteristic

of the ancestral Nubian wild ass and many have leg barrings associated with the Somali wild ass. In the

summer months, the burros concentrate in the critical area, which is generally within one and a half miles 

of all major water sources. During cooler months, the burros normally move into the mountains and

scatter throughout the area. The burros roam freely throughout the area, which is characterized by arroyoscarred alluvial fans to steep and rocky volcanic mountains. There are four major vegetation community

types found within the HMA. These include open hills characterized by creosote bush, primary and

secondary wash characterized by palo verde and burro bush, and secondary wash of predominately palo

verde and creosote. Summer temperatures can exceed 125 degrees, with about 100 days per year of above 

100 degrees. Burros share this habitat with desert bighorn sheep and desert mule deer. Other animals in

the area include small mammals, desert tortoises, several species of rattle snakes, a variety of birds,

including the southwestern willow flycatcher, lizards and amphibians. 

Lake Pleasant

The Lake Pleasant HMA is located approximately 25 miles northwest of Phoenix, west of Interstate 17

and north of State Highway 74. The HMA lies northeast of Lake Pleasant, and consists of 103,000 acres

of Sonoran Desert. The majority of the burros in the HMA congregate in or around Lake Pleasant

Regional Park due to the abundance of forage and water. The area consists of rugged mountains,

numerous small canyons and open rolling hills. The vegetation is typical of the upper Sonoran Desert 

consisting of palo verde and mixed cacti. Wildlife species include wild burros, desert mule deer, javelina

and mountain lions. Other animals found in the area include small mammals, songbirds, amphibians and

reptiles. 

Little Harquahala

The Little Harquahala HA is located southeast of Salome, Arizona, between U.S. Highway 60 and

Interstate 10. The HA includes the extreme western portion of the Harquahala Mountains and a majority

of the Little Harquahala Mountains. The HA includes 66,0000 acres of upper Sonoran desert and consists 

of desert mountains, separated by the Centennial Wash. The area is in mountainous terrain, covered with

palo verde, ironwood and catclaw acacia. In this HA, burros stay in the mountains on either side of

Centennial Wash during mild winters. The area receives about five inches of rain a year, mostly during

the winter months. In the summer, when temperatures exceed 100 degrees, the burros move down into the 

valley. Burros share this HA with desert bighorn sheep and desert mule deer. Other animals that can be

found in the area include the desert tortoise, several species of rattle snakes and a variety of birds and

other reptiles. 
Appendix F-1

Appendix F ñ Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species

Special status species include Federally listed (endangered or threatened), proposed, and candidate species, 

and designated or proposed critical habitat; species of concern managed under Conservation Agreements or 

Management Plans; state-listed species; and BLM-sensitive species. Several special status species

occurring within the management areas of the BLM Field Offices in Arizona are discussed in the LUPs

referenced at the beginning of Section 3.0, and are incorporated here by reference. However, additional

species and critical habitats have been added to or have changed Federal status under the Endangered

Species Act since the time these plans were written. Brief descriptions of each of the Federally listed,

proposed, and candidate species, as well as the Conservation Agreement and Management Plan species, are 

provided below. Information on these species was consolidated from a variety of sources, most notably, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Arizona Ecological Services website

(http://www.arizonaes.fws.gov), and the Arizona Game and Fish Departmentís (AGFD) Heritage Data

Management System (HDMS). HDMS provided lists, shape files, and habitat and general location

information for special status species generated by the HDMS Coordinator, as well as unpublished abstracts 

created by AGFD (http://www.gf.state.az.us/wildlife_conservation/edits/hdms_abstracts.html). Personal

communications with the HDMS Coordinator and species experts from state and federal agencies provided 

additional species information.

AMPHIBIANS

Federally protected amphibian species in Arizona that may be affected by the proposed project include one 

threatened frog species and one candidate frog species. Threats to amphibians include predation by

introduced bullfrogs and non-native fish, disease, habitat fragmentation or destruction, water 

manipulations, and water quality degradation. These species frequently have an increased probability of

local extirpation because of their small, often isolated, populations.

Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis)

This threatened species has two forms in Arizona: the Southern form, found in southeastern Arizona,

portions of southwestern New Mexico, and a portion of Mexico; and the Rim form, a disjunct population

occurring along the southern edge of the Colroado Plateau and headwater drainages in the White Mountains 

and along the Mogollon Rim in Arizona. The range of the Rim form extends from montane central Arizona 

east and south along the Mogollon Rim to montane parts of west-southwestern New Mexico, at elevations

ranging from 3500-8040 ft amsl (Apache, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Navajo, and Yavapai

Counties, AZ). The range of the southern form extends through the southeastern montane sector of

Arizona and adjacent Sonora, Mexico, at elevations ranging from 1219-4023 ft amsl (Santa Cruz and

Cochise Counties, AZ). Only the southern form of the species occurs on or downstream from BLMadministered lands. This species requires permanent water sources, including streams, rivers, backwaters,

ponds, and stock tanks that are mostly free from introduced fish, crayfish, and bullfrogs. The primary

habitat type of R. chiricahuensis is oak, mixed oak and pine woodlands, although its habitat ranges into

areas of chaparral, grassland, and desert.

Relict leopard frog (Rana onca)

In Arizona, this candidate species is restricted to a spring-fed wetland adjacent to the Virgin River near

Littlefield, AZ (Mohave County). At this time no relict leopard frogs occur on BLM-administered lands

within the action area. The site occupied by the Virgin River population occurs on private land. The

species typically inhabits permanent streams, springs, seeps, spring-fed wetlands, and edges of marshes and 

pools below 2000 ft amsl. Threats to the species include elimination or dramatic alteration of aquatic

habitats from human activities or development, and the spread of predator and nonnative bullfrogs,

crayfish, and predaceous fishes. 
Appendix F-2

BIRDS

The Federally listed, proposed, and candidate birds in Arizona considered for the Statewide LUP

Amendment totals 10 species. The list is dominated by five raptor species and four riparian-obligate 

species. These species have experienced a variety of threats, primarily habitat loss or fragmentation from

urbanization, agricultural expansion, or damming of rivers (affecting native riparian habitats). Past use of

pesticides and illegal hunting have also contributed to declines in many of the raptors.

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum)

The range of this endangered species in Arizona is limited to the New River (north) to the Gila Box (east) 

to the Cabeza Prieta Mountains (west) in Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yuma Counties. 

Proposed critical habitat for this species occurs in Pima and Pinal Counties. The species typically

inhabits mature cottonwood/willow woodlands or mesquite bosques, usually with saguaros on nearby

slopes, in the Arizona Upland Subdivision and Sonoran desert scrub, ranging in elevation from 1300-1400 

ft amsl. Before 1950, this species was a fairly common resident of low elevation riparian mesquite

woodlands in southern Arizona. This species has experienced drastic declines in both range and abundance 

and is absent in many places where it was formerly documented.

California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus)

This endangered sub-species is typically found on the Pacific Coast, but is an uncommon, non-breeding 

transient at many Arizona lakes and rivers. This fish-eating bird prefers large open water areas, such as

near dams, marinas, or river sandbars.

California condor (Gymnogyps californianus)

This endangered species is designated as an experimental, non-essential population (10(j) species) under 

Section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. The last wild condor was reported in Arizona in 1924;

however a recovery program has reintroduced condors to Northern Arizona beginning in 1996. The release 

site is on BLM-administered lands at the Vermillion Cliffs (Coconino County, AZ), with an experimental, 

non-essential area (10(j) area) designated in northern Arizona, extending north into Utah and Nevada. 

The Vermillion Cliffs are rugged sandstone cliffs located on the Paria Plateau, providing the necessary

remoteness, ridges, ledges, and caves favored by condors. The Paria Plateau is typified by Great Basin 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland, dominated by juniper and pinyon pine. Great Basin Desert Scrub occurs along 

the Vermillion Cliffs, dominated by sagebrush and rabbitbrush. Species diversity is low, with shrubs

occurring more frequently than woodland or forest. Some released condors have occasionally flown to

parts of Arizona outside the designated 10(j) area, however, they typically return after short periods.

Masked bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus ridgewayi)

This endangered species is presently only known from reintroduced populations on Buenos Aires National 

Wildlife Refuge in Pima County, AZ, although it formerly occurred in Altar and Santa Cruz Valleys and

Sonora, Mexico. The species inhabits desert grasslands with a diversity of dense native grasses, forbs, and 

brush, ranging in elevation from 300-4000 ft amsl.

Northern aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis)

This endangered species formerly nested in southeastern Arizona. There have been no recent confirmed

reports of this falcon in Arizona, but it has been found nearby in western New Mexico and in Mexico. It is 

likely that with improved habitats, the species will return to Arizona within the next 10-20 years,

potentially in Cochise, Santa Cruz, or Yuma Counties. This species inhabits grassland and savannah,

particularly sites with low ground cover and mesquite or yucca for nesting platforms.

Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)

The distribution of this endangered subspecies is restricted to riparian corridors within its range, including 

all counties in Arizona except Navajo, at elevations less than 9200 ft amsl. The species is a riparian

obligate, preferring dense canopy cover, a large volume of foliage, and surface water during midsummer.

It typically inhabits cottonwood/willow thickets along rivers and streams, although with the significant loss 

of this native riparian vegetation, the species will also use tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) or Russian olive

(Eleagnus angustifolia) thickets and riparian associates. Extreme population reductions have been noted
Appendix F-3

range-wide since the1800's, though quantitative data are lacking. Riparian habitat loss and fragmentation

and brood-parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds are two major causes for the decline of this flycatcher.

Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis)

This endangered secretive shorebird is the only clapper rail to breed in freshwater marshes, although it

also inhabits brackish water marshes and side waters. Within Arizona, the species is a locally common

summer resident and breeder occupying several locations along the lower Colorado River from the

Mexican border north to Littlefield, AZ on the Virgin River, including Lake Mead (Yuma, La Paz, and

Mohave Counties). Clapper rails also occur along the Bill Williams River below Alamo Dam, the Gila

River up to the confluence with the Salt River, protions of the Salt, Gila, and possibly lower Verde Rivers, 

and Picacho Reservoir (though that population may be gone)(La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal, and Yuma 

Counties). The species requires wet substrate (mudflat, sandbar) with dense herbaceous (e.g., cattails and 

bulrushes) or woody vegetation (e.g., Tamarisk spp.) for nesting and foraging. The interface between

water, soil and vegetation seems more important than the plant species that cover the site. Most birds are

found within the Lower Colorado Subdivision of the Sonoran Desert Scrub biome, ranging in elevation

from 75-1700 ft amsl in Arizona. Channelization and marsh development are primary sources of habitat

loss.

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

In Arizona, some birds of this threatened species are nesting residents while an estimated 200-300 birds

winter along rivers and reservoirs, covering all counties of Arizona except Greenlee. This species requires 

large trees or cliffs near water (reservoirs, rivers, and streams) with abundant prey. Illegal shooting,

disturbance, and loss of habitat continue to affect this species. It has been proposed for delisting (64 CFR

36454), but still receives full protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida)

This threatened species is patchily distributed in forested mountains statewide. It occurs at elevations

from 3000-9000 ft amsl in nearly all counties in Arizona, except La Paz and Yuma. For Arizona BLM,

only the Arizona Strip and Kingman Field Offices contain suitable habitat that could potentially sustain the 

subspecies, although no owls have been detected on BLM-administered lands in Arizona since the early

1980ís. Critical habitat was designated for Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Graham, Mohave, and Pima

Counties. Some critical habitat is designated on BLM-administered lands in the Arizona Strip management 

area, although the designated sites generally lack some of the primary constituent elements expected for the 

speciesí habitat. These owls nest primarily in dense older forests of mixed conifer or ponderosa

pine/gambel oak type, located on steep slopes, and deep, shady ravines or canyons. Sites with cool

microclimates and high canopy closure, high basal area, many snags, and many downed logs appear to be

of importance. They use a variety of habitats for foraging, including multi-layered forests with many

potential patches. Many of the potentially suitable forested habitats on BLM-administered lands in Arizona 

are not currently suitable for Mexican spotted owls because they lack or are altered from the old-growth 

characteristics or dense, multi-storied forest structure found in other parts of the speciesí range. Canyon 

habitats located on BLM-administered lands are typically considered too hot and dry to provide suitable

habitat for the species. 

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)

This candidate species is found in all counties in Arizona except Navajo at elevations less than 6700 ft

amsl. It requires large blocks of riparian woodlands (cottonwood-willow galleries or tamarisk thickets). 

The USFWS has found that the species warrants listing, but other, higher priority listing actions prevent the 

USFWS from addressing the listing of the cuckoo at this time.

FISH

Fish species that are Federally listed and proposed total 14 species, and many have designated or proposed

critical habitat. Many of these species were formerly widespread in the river systems of Arizona, but are

now restricted to isolated or reduced populations on a fraction of their former range. Threats to these

species typically include man-made changes to the river systems, such as habitat fragmentation, damming,

dewatering for agriculture, mining, and urbanization, and competition or predation by introduced nonnative fish species.
Appendix F-4

Bonytail chub (Gila elegans)

This endangered species is endemic to the Colorado River Basin and is the rarest of the Colorado River

fish. Population augmentation is on-going in Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu in Mohave and La Paz

Counties, AZ. The species was historically found in the warm, swift, turbid mainstem rivers of the

Colorado River basin, but, in Arizona, is now restricted to the two reservoirs in the lower basin. Critical 

habitat designated for this species includes the Colorado River from Hoover Dam to Parker Dam

(including Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu) in Arizona.

Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius)

This endangered species was historically found in Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz,

and Yavapai Counties, AZ at elevations less than 5000 ft amsl. There are no natural populations of this

species remaining in Arizona. Reintroduced populations continue to exist at only two sites, Cold Springs 

(Graham County) and Lousy Canyon (Yavapai County); both sites are on BLM-administered lands. Other 

reintroduction sites are considered failed or the fish are of questionable heritage. BLM is pursuing a series 

of introductions into parts of the Aravaipa system, a tributary of the San Pedro River. There are also 14

refugia populations of desert pupfish. Critical habitat includes Quitobaquito Springs (Pima County,

Arizona), and portions of San Felipe Creek, Carrizo Wash, and Fish Creek Wash (Imperial County, 

California). These critical habitat segments are located upstream of BLM lands in Arizona and outside the 

proposed action area in California. Critical habitat designations are primarily pertinent to the Quitobaquito 

pupfish (Cyprinodon eremus), which was considered a subspecies of the desert pupfish at the time of

listing. Desert pupfish typically occupy shallow waters of springs, small streams, and marshes, although it 

tolerates saline and warm water. Sites are often associated with areas of soft substrates and clear water.

Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis)

This endangered species was once the most common fish in the Gila River basin. It historically occurred

in most perennial springs, streams, and vegetated margins and backwaters in rivers of the Gila River

drainage in Yavapai, Gila, Pinal, Maricopa, Graham, Greenlee, Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz and Yuma

Counties, AZ. Currently, disjunct populations exist in 14 natural locations and 17 re-introduced locations

within the Gila River drainage and one location in the Bill Williams River drainage, outside the

topminnowís natural range. Of these localities, 15 are springs and the rest are creeks and washes at

elevations less than 5000 ft amsl. Many of these natural and reintroduced populations occur on or

downstream from BLM-administered lands. In 1998, populations were proposed for reintroductions by

BLM into three tributaries of the Agua Fria River (Yavapai County, AZ). This species prefers shallow

warm water in a moderate current with dense aquatic vegetation and algae mats.

Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)

Historically, this endangered species was once common to many of the rivers of the Colorado River Basin, 

including the Colorado, Gila, Salt, Verde, and San Pedro Rivers in Arizona, at elevations less that 5000 ft

amsl. Presently, as a result of impoundment of large rivers and other habitat alterations, natural adult

populations exist only in Lake Mohave, Lake Mead, Lake Havasu, and Horseshoe Reservoir (Mohave, La 

Paz, and Maricopa Counties, AZ). Critical habitat for this species includes the 100-year floodplain and all 

reservoirs of the lower Colorado River from the confluence with Paria River, through the Grand Canyon, to 

Imperial Dam; the Gila River from the Arizona/New Mexico border to Coolidge Dam; Salt River from

Hwy 60/SR77 Bridge to Roosevelt Dam; and Verde River from the USFS boundary to Horseshoe

Reservoir. Razorback suckers use a variety of habitat types from mainstem channels to slow backwaters of 

medium and large streams and rivers, sometimes around cover. In impoundments, they prefer depths of >1 

meter over sand, mud or gravel substrates. Due to lack of recruitment, the few isolated populations of this 

species remain small.

Virgin River chub (Gila seminuda) 

This endangered species is restricted to the Virgin River in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona (Mohave County), 

at elevations between 1500-2500 ft amsl. It has been documented in the Moapa (Muddy) River and the

mouth of Beaver Dam Wash. Critical habitat has been designated along the main channel of the Virgin

River and its 100-year floodplain. These fish are most common in deeper areas where waters are swift, but 

not turbulent, and are most often associated with boulders or other types of cover. Water in the Virgin
Appendix F-5

River is generally somewhat warm, turbid, and saline. Populations of this species continue to decline due

to habitat modifications, dewatering from agriculture, mining, and urbanization, and management of nonnative species.

Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus)

This endangered species historically occupied the lower Colorado River basin including the Virgin,

Moapa, Salt and Gila River systems. At present, the woundfin is restricted to approximately 50 miles of

perennial reaches of the Virgin River in the states of Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. It is found sporadically

throughout the Arizona portion of the Virgin River mainstem in Mohave County at 1500-2500 ft amsl. The 

Virgin River and its 100-year floodplain have been designated as critical habitat for this species. 

Experimental populations (ESA Section 10(j)) have been designated, but not yet introduced, in portions

of the Verde, Gila, San Francisco, and Hassayampa Rivers and Tonto Creek. Woundfin prefer the main

channel of seasonally swift, highly turbid, and extremely warm, silty streams, with sandy, constantly

shifting bottoms. They seemingly avoid clear waters and are very seldom found in quieter pools. Young

fish seek quiet backwaters with sandy substrates. Biotic communities along the Virgin River include the

Great Basin and Mohave Desert Scrub; the riparian community consists primarily of Tamarix spp. 

Historical habitat has been lost by habitat fragmentation, introduction of nonnative species, and dewatering 

due to agriculture, mining and urbanization. Damming and drying have caused the disappearance of the

woundfin throughout most of its historic range and continue to impact it in the Virgin River.

Yaqui chub (Gila purpurea)

This endangered species is currently restricted to the San Bernardino and Leslie Canyon National Wildlife 

Refuges (NWR) (3700-4600 ft amsl), in Cochise County, AZ. Critical habitat has been designated on all 

aquatic habitats of the main portion of the San Bernardino NWR. The San Bernardino NWR is down-slope 

from a small area (1 square mile) of BLM-administered lands located in the upper part of the drainage

approximately 7 miles east of the refuge. Leslie Canyon NWR occurs downslope or adjacent to small

parcels of BLM-administered lands. The species occupies deeper pools of small streams near undercut

banks or debris, often in association with dense aquatic vegetation, such as low, emergent aquatic plants

and hydrophytic tree species (e.g., willows). It is also found in swifter areas with clean, gravel bottoms and 

abundant growths of algae. Historically, the Yaqui chub was found in springs, cienegas, creeks, and

moderately-sized rivers, which typically had alternating riffles and pools. 

Yaqui topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis sonoriensis)

This endangered species is limited to the Rio Yaqui River Basin, and, in Arizona, is restricted to the San

Bernardino and Leslie Canyon NWRs in Cochise County, AZ. The San Bernardino NWR is down-slope 

from a small area (1 square mile) of BLM-administered lands located in the upper part of the drainage

approximately 7 miles east of the refuge. Leslie Canyon NWR occurs downslope or adjacent to small

parcels of BLM-administered lands. These fish occur at elevations from 3700- 4600 ft amsl in Arizona,

and occupy small to moderate-sized streams, springs, and cienegas, generally in shallows.

Beautiful (Yaqui) shiner (Cyprinella formosa)

This threatened species was extirpated in the United States by 1970, but as of 1991, it was still found in

most of its historic range in Mexico. In 1990, this fish was reintroduced into four man-made ponds on the 

San Bernardino NWR in Cochise County, AZ. Critical habitat has been designated on all aquatic habitats 

of the main portion of the San Bernardino NWR. The San Bernardino NWR is down-slope from a small

area (1 square mile) of BLM-administered lands located in the upper part of the drainage approximately 7 

miles east of the refuge. The species prefers small- to medium-sized streams and ponds with sand, gravel, 

and rock bottoms, with associated riparian plant communities, at elevations less than 4000 ft amsl. 

Little Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata)

This threatened species is endemic to the Little Colorado River and its north flowing tributaries, including 

the Coconino, Navajo, and Apache Counties, AZ. In Arizona, four populations exist on the mainstem of

the Little Colorado River, Nutrioso Creek, Clear Creek, and Chevlon Creek. One population occurring

near BLM-administered lands is in Chevlon Creek, which is at least 1 mile downstream or downslope from 

scattered parcels (1 square mile) of public lands. Other records exist for populations on the Little Colorado 

River upstream from Lyman Lake near a BLM parcel adjacent to the river. Records also exist for
Appendix F-6

spinedace occurring in Silver Creek, and habitat on BLM-administered lands along this creek down to and 

including the confluence with the Little Colorado River would also be considered occupied. Critical 

habitat has been designated on 18 miles of East Clear Creek, eight miles of Chevlon Creek, and five miles 

of Nutrioso Creek. These fish are most common in slow to moderate water currents, over fine gravel

bottoms, at depths of around 2 feet. It prefers unshaded pools with rocks or undercut banks for cover. 

Associated riparian vegetation includes Alnus spp. (alder), Salix spp. (willow), Quercus spp. (oak), and

mixed conifer species. Populations fluctuate dramatically from year to year, and probably reflect cyclic

periods of drought and/or increased rainfall. However, populations are thought to be declining due to

alteration of habitat through reduced stream flow and interaction with introduced non-native fishes.

Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis)

This threatened species currently persists in Arizona only in limited reaches of Aravaipa Creek, Blue

River, Campbell Blue Creek, San Francisco River, Dry Blue River, and the mainstem of the upper Gila

River in Apache, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, Pinal, and Navajo Counties. Known populations once present in 

other rivers and streams of the state have been eliminated. Critical habitat was designated in April 2000,

and in addition to occupied habitat, it includes habitat in the Arizona counties of Cochise, Pima, and

Yavapai, which presently contain no known populations of loach minnow. This benthic fish occupies

turbulent, rocky riffles of mainstream rivers and tributaries at elevations from 2325-8200 ft amsl. They

prefer moderate to swift current velocity and gravel or cobble substrates, with an open, low growing

riparian community composed mostly of grasses and shrubs. This speciesí range has been dramatically

reduced and fragmented because of habitat destruction, and competition and predation by introduced fish

species.

Spikedace (Meda fulgida)

Historically, this threatened species was common and locally abundant throughout the Upper Gila River

basin of Arizona and New Mexico. In Arizona, this included the Agua Fria, San Pedro, and San Francisco 

River systems, and the Gila, Salt and Verde Rivers and major tributaries upstream of present-day Phoenix. 

Presently, these fish are restricted to Aravaipa Creek (Graham and Pinal Counties), Eagle Creek (Greenlee 

County), and the upper Verde River (Yavapai County) in Arizona, and the upper Gila River system in New 

Mexico. Critical habitat was designated in April 2000, and in addition to occupied habitat, it includes

habitat in the Arizona counties of Apache, Cochise, Gila, and Pima, which presently contain no known

populations of spikedace. The spikedace occurs at elevations from 1600-4500 ft amsl, occupying midwater 

habitats of runs, pools, and swirling eddies of moderate to large perennial streams, with gravel cobble

substrates and moderate to swift velocities over sand and gravel substrates.

Yaqui catfish (Ictalurus pricei)

This threatened species historically occurred in San Bernardino Creek as far up as San Bernardino Ranch, 

Arizona. In Arizona, the species is now restricted to a small population (~350 fish) re-introduced in

November 1997 into the Rio Yaqui on the northern portion of the San Bernardino NWR (3730-3780 ft

amsl), in Cochise County. Critical habitat was designated on all aquatic habitats of the main portion of

this NWR. The San Bernardino NWR is down-slope from a small area (1 square mile) of BLMadministered lands located in the upper part of the drainage approximately 7 miles east of the refuge. 

Habitat for this species includes ponds or streams, and moderate to large rivers, with medium to slow

current over sand and rock bottoms; it prefers quiet clear pools. When streams flow intermittently in the

dry season, the catfish seeks refuge in permanent, often spring-fed pools.

Gila chub (Gila intermedia)

This species is proposed for listing by the USFWS. The largest remaining U.S. populations are in

southeastern Arizona. Gila chub are found in pools, springs, cienegas and streams (2700-5400 ft amsl) on 

BLM-administered lands, as well as multiple private lands (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, Audubon

Society, and others), in the central and southeastern counties of Arizona. Proposed critical habitat for this 

fish occurs in Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties, AZ. This

species is also found in Sonora, Mexico. 
Appendix F-7

FLOWERING PLANTS

The Federally listed, proposed, and candidate plants for BLM-administered lands in Arizona totals 12

species. The list is dominated by seven cactus species (Cactaceae family). All of these plants are also

protected from collection under the Arizona Native Plant Law as Highly Safeguarded species. Many of

these species are desert species growing on very special substrates. From a distributional perspective, the

group is focused in northern Arizona and along the deserts of the southwest part of the state. 

Arizona Cliffrose (Purshia subintegra) Rosaceae

This endangered shrub species is endemic to Arizona. It is found in Graham, Maricopa, Mohave, and

Yavapai Counties, AZ, at elevations ranging from 2120-4000 ft amsl. Its habitat is characteristically white 

soils derived from tertiary limestone lakebed deposits within Sonoran Desert Scrub communities. Threats

to this species include a low number of populations, poor recruitment rates, herbivory from livestock and

burros, and off-highway vehicle use.

Brady Pincushion Cactus (Pediocactus bradyi) Cactaceae

The Brady pincushion cactus is listed as endangered and occurs only in Coconino County, AZ. It occupies 

bench and terrace habitats in Great Basin Desert Scrub near Marble Gorge. Substrate is Kaibab limestone 

chips over Moenkopi shale and sandstone soil. Threats to viability include small and localized populations, 

illegal collecting, livestock grazing, highway maintenance, off-road vehicles, and other recreation.

Holmgren Milkvetch (Astragalus holmgrenorium) Fabaceae

The endangered Holmgren milkvetch is found only in Mohave County, Arizona on Arizona State Lands,

at elevations ranging from 2700 ft to 2800 ft amsl. Just under limestone ridges and along draws in gravelly 

clay hills. Two additional populations are known near St. George, Utah. This species is also known as

Paradox milkvetch.

Huachuca Water Umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva) Apiaceae

This parsley family species is listed as endangered and occurs in disjunct populations in Cochise, Pima,

and Santa Cruz Counties, AZ. It also occurs in adjacent Sonora, Mexico, west of the continental divide.

Populations are on Fort Huachuca Military Reservation. Critical habitat is designated in Cochise and

Santa Cruz counties (64 FR 37441, July 12, 1999). It is typically found at elevations of 4000-6500 ft amsl, 

although it may be found as low as 2000 ft amsl. It occupies habitat in cienegas, perennial low gradient

streams, and wetlands. Threats to this species include watershed degradation from livestock trampling,

diversion of water, dewatering of its habitat, and flash floods.

Kearneyís Blue Star (Amsonia kearneyana) Apocynaceae

Kearneyís blue star is Federally endangered. It occurs in Pima County, AZ, at elevations of 3600-6400 ft 

amsl. Its habitat includes west-facing drainages in the Baboquivari Mountains. Plants grow in stable,

partially shaded, coarse alluvium along a dry wash.

Nichol Turk's Head Cactus (Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii) Cactaceae

This cactus species is Federally endangered. It is an isolated subspecies in Arizona and probably Sonora, 

Mexico of the widespread Chihuahuan E. horizonthalonius Lemair. It is found at elevations of 2000-3600 

ft amsl in Pima and Pinal Counties, AZ. It is a very slow-growing plant. Its habitat features unshaded 

microsites in Sonoran Desert Scrub, on dissected alluvial fans at the foot of limestone mountains, and on

inclined terraces and saddles on limestone mountainsides.

Peebles Navajo Cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. peeblesianus) Cactaceae

The Peebles Navajo cactus carries a listing of Federally endangered. It occurs only in Navajo County, AZ. 

Its elevation range is 5100-5650 ft amsl. The habitat for this cactus includes the gravelly soils of the

Shinarump conglomerate of the Chinle Formation. Gravel quarrying has destroyed as much as one-fourth 

of the potential habitat in the area. There are only 1000 individuals left in the wild, and these are sought by 

collectors and threatened by off-road vehicles, urban development, and continued gravel pit operations.
Appendix F-8

Pima Pineapple Cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina) Cactaceae

This Federally endangered cactus species occurs in Pima and Santa Cruz Counties, AZ, at elevations

ranging from 2300-4000 ft amsl. Habitat for this species includes Sonoran Desert Scrub or Semi-desert 

Grassland communities. It cccurs in alluvial valleys or on hillsides in rocky to sandy or silty soils. Loss of 

habitat is based on urban development, off-road vehicle use, road construction, agriculture, and mining. 

Illegal collecting is also a threat to this species. 

Jones cycladenia (Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii) Apocynaceae

The Jones cycladenia is Federally threatened. It occurs in Mohave County, AZ, at elevations from 4390 ft 

to 6000 ft amsl. Its habitat includes Mixed Desert Scrub, juniper, or wild buckwheat-mormon tea plant

communities. It is found on gypsiferous, saline soils of the Cutler, Summerville, Moenkopi, and Chinle

formations. It is also found in Emery, Garfield, and Grand Counties, Utah. Populations of this species are 

threatened by impacts from mineral and oil and gas exploration, and habitat damage from off-road vehicles. 

This species has very exacting soil requirements and low fruit set.

Siler Pincushion Cactus (Pediocactus sileri) Cactaceae

The Siler pincushion cactus has a Federal listing of threatened. It occurs in Coconino and Mohave

Counties, AZ, at elevations ranging from 2800-5400 ft amsl. Its habitat includes Desert Scrub transitional 

areas. This cactus grows on gypsiferous clay and sandy soils of the Moenkopi formation.

Acuna cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis) Cactaceae

This cactus is a candidate for Federal listing, known to occur in Pima and Pinal Counties, AZ, at elevations 

ranging from 1300-2600 ft amsl. It typically occurs on well-drained knolls and gravel ridges in Sonoran

Desert Scrub communities. The Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument population is stable; however

others are at risk from illegal collecting.

Fickeisen Plains Cactus (Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae) Cactaceae

This federal candidate cactus species is an Arizona endemic found in Coconino and Mohave Counties at

elevations of 4000-5450 ft amsl. Its habitat includes exposed layers of Kaibab limestone on canyon

margins, or hills of Great Basin Desert Scrub. Threats to this species variety include illegal collection,

trampling by livestock, off-road vehicle use, insect and rodent predation, road construction and

maintenance, and mining.

MAMMALS

Federally listed and candidate mammals in Arizona totals 8 species. Several of these species were

extirpated from the state, and have recovery programs that are currently reintroducing populations or have

plans to re-establish populations by natural migration or reintroductions in the future (10-20 years). 

Habitats on BLM-administered lands either currently or are expected to play an important role in these

recovery programs.

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes)

No wild populations of this endangered species currently exist in Arizona. One reintroduced population

has been established in the Aubrey Valley on tribal lands in northwestern Arizona, designated as an

experiment/non-essential site under the Endangered Species Act (Section 10(j)). Black-footed ferrets 

require established prairie dog towns for food and shelter, which often occur in Plains Grassland and Great 

Basin Grassland. In Arizona, the historical range probably coincided with that of the Gunnison's prairie

dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) north of the Mogollon Rim but south of the Colorado River, and possibly that of 

the black-tailed prairie dog (C. ludovicianus) below the Rim in Graham and Cochise counties. A recent

survey of Gunnisonís prairie dog towns in Arizona resulted in no new potential sites for black-footed ferret 

reintroductions. However, the Arizona Game and Fish Department continues to pursue ferret

reintroductions, and BLM-administered lands may provide suitable sites within the next 15-20 years.

Hualapai Mexican vole (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis)

This endangered species is confirmed only in the Hualapai Mountain Range and possibly in the Prospect

Valley and Music Mountains, in Mohave, Coconino, and Yavapai Counties, AZ, at elevations between

2000-7000 ft amsl. Ongoing research may verify the species in additional locations. These voles inhabit
Appendix F-9

grass/forb habitats in ponderosa pine, typically near water. They are also found in pinyon-juniper and pineoak associations with a variety of shrubs and grasses.

Jaguar (Panthera onca)

No breeding populations of this endangered species are known to exist in the United States. Individuals

occur in the Southwest as occasional wanderers from Mexico. The historical range of the jaguar included

the mountainous regions of eastern Arizona (Cochise, Santa Cruz, and Pima Counties), southwestern New

Mexico and northeastern Sonora, Mexico. The jaguar likely occurred as a resident species only in

southeastern Arizona although historic records extend north to the Grand Canyon. In Arizona, jaguars have 

been sighted in a variety of ecological communities, from Sonoran desert scrub through subalpine conifer

forest (1600->9800 ft amsl). Jaguars have shown an affinity towards areas with dense plant cover, an

abundance of prey, and the presence of water. Most records are from Madrean evergreen-woodland, shrubinvaded semi-desert grassland, and along rivers, which were likely used as travel corridors. BLMadministered lands may play a role in the recovery of this species.

Lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae)

This endangered species is migratory, present in southern Arizona (Cochise, Gila, Graham, Pima, Pinal,

Maricopa, and Santa Cruz Counties) usually from April to September. These bats inhabit Desert or

Semidesert Grassland and desert shrub (PaloVerde/Saguaro) up to Oak Woodland transition habitats (1200-

7300 ft amsl). They forage mainly on agave and columnar cacti blooms in paloverde-mixed cacti

vegetation. The bats typically day-roost in caves and abandoned tunnels. In April, pregnant females

congregate at traditional maternity roost sites; males and perhaps nonpregnant females arrive in July. By

late September or October, the bats migrate south to unknown locations in Mexico for the winter. 

Significant population declines are thought to be associated with reduced numbers and size of maternity

colonies in Arizona and Sonora due to exclusion and disturbance.

Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi)

This endangered species has been reintroduced as an experimental/nonessential population (Endangered 

Species Act, Section 10(j)) in the Blue Primitive Area of Greenlee, Apache, and Coconino Counties,

Arizona. Unconfirmed sightings of individuals have been reported in the southern part of the state

(Cochise, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties). Its historic range included eastern and central Arizona, the

Mogollon Plateau, southern New Mexico, western and central Texas and the Sierra Madre Occidental area 

of western Mexico. Habitat types are primarily chapparal, pine-oak woodlands, pinyon-juniper forests,

riparian areas, and grasslands above 4000 ft amsl. Individuals may also cross desert areas.

Ocelot (Leopardus [=Felis] pardalis)

This endangered species is considered extirpated from Arizona, although unconfirmed reports of

individuals in the southern part of the state (Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz Counties) continue to be received. 

It occurs at elevations <8000 ft amsl, typically occupying humid tropical and subtropical forests,

savannahs, and semi-arid thornscrub. It may persist in partly-cleared forests, second-growth woodland, and 

abandoned cultivation reverted to brush. A primary habitat component is the presence of dense cover. 

Recovery programs for the ocelot include evaluating potential habitat for reintroductions over the next 10-

15 years in southern Arizona (e.g., San Pedro area), which may include BLM-administered lands.

Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis)

Historically, this endangered desert subspecies of antelope inhabited southwest Arizona and the northern

part of Sonora, Mexico, but its population has been reduced to two small groups (estimated 150 individuals 

in Arizona; 250 in Mexico). The Arizona population survives in the arid flatlands of the Barry M.

Goldwater Range, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge,

with occasional sightings on Bureau of Land Management lands (Pima, Maricopa, and Yuma Counties). 

Within the Sonoran desert, these antelope are found in broad, alluvial valleys, with creosote-bursage and

paloverde-mixed cacti associations, separated by granite mountains and mesas, at elevations from 340-2000 

ft amsl. Vegetation is scarce throughout most of its habitat due to little and sporadic rainfall.
Appendix F-10

Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)

This candidate species is currently extirpated from Arizona. Historically, this species was found in Pima, 

Cochise, and Graham Counties, AZ, inhabiting burrows in plains and grassland habitats at elevations from

3000-5500 ft amsl. These prairie dogs occur 5 miles south of the Arizona border in Mexico and have been 

reintroduced in southwestern New Mexico. With the current conservation efforts for this species, blacktailed prairie dogs may re-establish in Arizona in the next 10-15 years, either naturally or through

reintroductions. BLM-administered lands may play a role in the speciesí recovery.

REPTILES

Two reptile species in Arizona are Federally listed as threatened. The Mohave population of the desert

tortoise, which occurs north and west of the Colorado River, is actively managed by the Arizona Strip,

Lake Havasu, and Yuma Field Offices. BLM has also participated in studies on the effects of wildfire on

tortoises and their habitat. The New Mexico ridgenose rattlesnake has only a few reported sites in eastern

Arizona.

Desert tortoise, Mohave population (Gopherus agassizii)

The Mohave population of the desert tortoise is listed as threatened, and includes all tortoises north and

west of the Colorado River. In Arizona, this includes Mohave County north of the river, west of the Beaver 

Dam Mountains, north of the Virgin Mountains, and in the Pakoon Basin (Arizona Strip Field Office). In

California, this includes lands in the western-most portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial

Counties, within the management areas of the Lake Havasu and Yuma Field Offices. These tortoises are

still found throughout their range, but populations are fragmented and declining. BLM has classified desert 

tortoise habitat into three categories based on habitat quality, tortoise population densities, and management 

potential for tortoises. Habitat for the Mohave population includes sandy loam to rocky soils in valleys,

bajadas, and hills in Mohave desert scrub and the Lower Colorado River Valley subdivision of the Sonoran 

Desert, with elevations ranging from 500-5100 ft amsl. The Mohave population occurs in plant

communities dominated by creosotebush and other sclerophyll shrubs with small cacti and, in some areas,

abundant Joshua trees.

New Mexico ridgenose rattlesnake (Crotalus willardi obscurus)

This threatened snake species has been documented on USFS lands in the Peloncillo Mountains (Cochise 

County, AZ), with only three known records in Arizona. It primarily inhabits canyon bottoms in pine-oak 

communities at elevations of 5000-6600 ft amsl.

CONSERVATION AGREEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN SPECIES

Four species were formerly considered Category 2 candidate species for listing by the USFWS, but a

change in regulations removed their Federal status. They include two reptile (lizard, tortoise), one cactus,

and one fish species. These are currently considered Federal species of concern, and BLM participates in

Conservation Agreements (3 species) and Management Plans (1 species) to manage these priority species.

Flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii)

The Conservation Agreement for this species was finalized in May 1997. This species of concern is found 

in Yuma County, Arizona, and in central Riverside County and Imperial County, California, within the

management area of the BLM Yuma Field Office. This species inhabits sandy flats, dune-fringe areas, or

areas with deposits of fine, windblown sand, at elevations less than 540 ft amsl. The creosote-white 

bursage series of the Sonoran Desert dominates these sites.

Paradine (Kaibab) plains cactus (Pediocactus paradinei)

The Conservation Agreement for this species was signed in February 1998. This species of concern is

found in Coconino County, Arizona, within the management area of the BLM Arizona Strip Field Office. 

This cactus species occupies sites in pinyon-juniper woodland and shrub/grassland at elevations of 5000-

7200 ft amsl.
Appendix F-11

Virgin spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis)

The Conservation Agreement for this species was finalized in 1995. This species of concern is limited to

the tributaries and the mainstem of the Virgin River at the mouth of tributaries. In Arizona, it occurs in

Mohave County, within the management area of the BLM St. George Field Office. This fish species

occupies clear, cool, relatively swift streams with scattered pools at elevations of about 1800 ft amsl. It is

also found in Washington County, Utah and Clarke County, Nevada.

Desert tortoise, Sonoran population (Gopherus agassizii)

All Arizona BLM Field Offices manage the Sonoran population of the desert tortoise on public lands under 

the Management Plan for the Sonoran Desert Population of the Desert Tortoise in Arizona (Arizona

Interagency Tortoise Team), finalized in December 1996. The Sonoran population includes those tortoises 

south and east of the Colorado River, including Cochise, Gila, Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Pima, 

Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona. BLM has classified desert tortoise habitat into three

categories based on habitat quality, tortoise population densities, and management potential for tortoises. 

The Sonoran population occurs primarily on rocky slopes and bajadas of Mohave and Sonoran desert scrub, 

at elevations ranging from 508-5250 ft amsl. Habitats include a variety of biotic communities within the

Upland and Lower Colorado River Valley subdivisions of the Sonoran Desert, but are most often

paloverde-mixed cacti associations, as well as ecotonal areas consisting of Sonoran desertscub with

elements of Mohave desert scrub, desert grassland, interior chaparral, and juniper woodland. Caliche caves 

in incised, cut banks of washes (arroyos) are also used for shelter sites, especially in the Lower Colorado

River Valley subdivision.
Appendix G-1

Appendix G ñ Cultural Resource Site Types in Arizona

Prehistoric Archeological Sites 

Village (Rancheria) Usually a permanent habitation area for several families over an extended period of time.

Temporary Camp A temporary habitation area.

 Farm Camp Temporary camp occupied during planting or harvesting times; usually found along the 

Colorado River.

 Trail Camp Very temporary camp used for a night or two during migrations.

Hunting/Gathering Camp Temporary camp used for a few weeks as a base camp for hunting and gathering 

activities.

 Rock Shelter A temporary camp found within a natural rock shelter.

Cleared Circle Also known as ìSleeping Circles,î a cleared and/or smoothed depression area on desert 

pavement terraces, usually used for sleeping.

Rock Circles Usually a cleared area with rocks around the edge, thought to have served as anchors for 

temporary brush huts.

Quarry/Lithic Source A source area for raw lithic materials used for tool manufacture, or for minerals used for 

paints.

Roasting Pit A concentration of thermally affected rocks usually with ash in the soil. These may 

occasionally be cremation sites.

Rock Cairn A trail marker, monument, or ìshrineî resulting from stones placed in a pile or cluster.

Midden A refuse area usually associated with permanent or semi-permanent annually occupied 

villages or camps.

Milling Station A food preparation area where one or more grinding stones (metates, mortars, or pestles) 

are present.

Knapping Station An area where cores or raw lithic materials were reduced to blanks, performs, or tools, 

evidenced by concentrations of large chunks or flakes of the same material.

Lithic Scatter A location used to manufacture a lithic tools, as evidenced by a scatter of lithic flakes or 

cores.

Ceramic Scatter A location with scattered broken pottery sherds, possibly the result of the breakage of a 

single vessel.

Hunting Blind A semi-walled locality, usually on hilly or mountainous slopes, used to hunt primarily 

bighorn sheep and deer.

Kill Site A location where large animals (such as bison or mammoth) have been killed and/or 

butchered.

Burial/Cremation Evidence or human burial or cremation, the latter usually containing ash and pieces of 

human bone.
Appendix G-2

Trail An aboriginal footpath used to travel from area to area. Trails are primarily identified by 

association with artifacts and/or features.

Aboriginal Art Geometric, zoomorphic, or anthropomorphic design created by aboriginal peoples.

 Petroglyphs Designs pecked, rubbed, or scratched onto rock.

 Pictographs Designs painted on rock.

 Intaglios Large designs created on desert pavement by removal of surface gravel..

Rock Alignments Large designs created by the alignment of rocks and gravel.

Isolated Artifacts Artifacts, such as pottery sherds, lithic tools, etc., found without association to an 

identifiable site.

Historic Archeological Sites 

Mine Evidence of ore removal for mineral extraction, i.e., pits, holes, shafts, adits, tailings, etc.

Mill Structures (or the remains of structures) associated with processing minerals.

Town Aggregation of structures and other physical remains of a multifamily occupation in 

historic periods.

Home or Cabin Single structure and associated physical remains of a single person or family occupancy.

Corrals and Fences Open-air structures pertaining to containment of horses, cattle, or other livestock.

Historic Campsite Evidence of temporary occupation by one or more families. Usually associated with 

temporary mining or river-related activities.

Road or Trail Evidence of historic use as a wagon or pack train route.

Military Site of a military camp or other activities. Primarily remnants of General Pattonís World 

War II maneuvers.

Trash Dump Historic refuse associated with any of the above.

Grave One or more historical burials.

Traditional Cultural/Religious Sites

Ceremonial Site A prehistoric or historic area of sacred character. Physical evidence of ceremonial 

activities are usually present in the form of dance patterns, vision quest circles, intaglios, 

rock cairns, etc.

Sacred Area A prehistoric or historic area of sacred character. Evidence of physical activities is not 

always present. Certain mountaintops, power places and vision quest locations are 

examples of sacred areas.

Traditional Use Area An area of traditional use for hunting, gathering (of food or medicinal plants), fishing, or 

traveling.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Adapted from Lower Gila South RMP (Appendix 17) and Final Yuma District RMP (Table 3-1)
Appendix G-3

Appendix G ñ Arizona Chronology*

Paleoindian Period

11,500 BC ñ 5,000 BC

Earliest known human occupation of North America, Paleoindians were small (20-30 individuals), nomadic groups 

which, utilizing distinctive Clovis technology, hunted mammoth and other megafauna. Many of the large game 

animals became extinct before the later phases of the Paleoindian Period (Folsom, Plano), although exploitation of 

resources such as Bison antiquis continued.

Archaic Period

8,000 BC ñ 1 AD

In the Early Archaic, small family groups of hunter-gatherers ranging over large territories, often using caves and 

rockshelters for base camps. Greater reliance on plants for food. Increasingly marginal environmental conditions 

necessitated improvements in technology. Use of baskets, milling stones, and a variety of different types of points 

and ground stone tools. The introduction of ceramics and horticulture (beans, corn, and squash) from Mesoamerica 

towards the end of the Archaic contributed to the development of more permanent settlements along the river 

valleys. Use of storage pits and other techniques for food preservation.

Ancestral Puebloan 

Period

1000 BC ñ 1300 AD

Considered ancestral to modern Pueblo Indians, this culture occupied the Four Corners region, including 

northeastern Arizona. Agriculture became an important component of Ancestral Puebloan culture around 500 AD, 

and by 700 AD, pit houses were replaced by pueblo architecture. It is believed that climatic changes and/or social 

conflict beginning around 900 AD caused the abandonment of settlements by 1300 AD.

Hohokam Period

150 AD ñ 1450 AD

Predominant in south-central Arizona. Increased importance of agriculture and a settled lifestyle; advanced 

irrigation techniques. Settlement patterns became more sophisticated over time: early pithouse clusters gave way to 

rock and adobe construction in the Classic Period. Settlements also exhibited similarities to Mesoamerican sites, 

with courtyard spaces and ceremonial ball courts. The ruins of Casa Grande, a four-story structure build in the mid1300s with apparent ceremonial/astronomical significance reflect the sophistication of the Hohokam Classic Period. 

Mogollon/Mimbres 

Period

200 AD ñ 1450 AD

Centered in southern New Mexico and West Texas (Rio Grande Valley), the Mogollon culture also extended into 

southeastern Arizona, and was generally contemporary with the Hohokam. Transition from pithouse to pueblo-style 

villages of up to 100 dwellings surrounding central plazas. Characteristic black-on-white pottery during the 

Mimbres Classic period. The abandonment of the Mimbres region occurred after AD 1300, although cultural 

elements are found as far west as the Salado Region (Tonto Basin). 

Salado Period

1150 AD ñ 1450 AD

The Salado Indians occupied the Tonto Basin area, generally in the region between the middle Salt River and Tonto 

Creek, and in the rugged upper Sonoran Desert near the edge of the Mollogon Rim. The Salado practiced simple 

irrigation of crops (corn and beans) and utilized native plants such as yucca and agave. Food was stored in large 

beehive shaped granaries made of baskets lined with adobe and placed on low rock pedestals. Polychrome pottery 

made from red clay is characteristic of the Salado. Structures were typically cobble and adobe (similar to Hohokam 

masonry) and were organized into protected compounds around a central plaza. Platform mounds (ex. Cline Terrace 

Mound) began to be constructed around 1280 AD. The Salado abandoned these villages for cliff dwellings during the 

late 1300s, ultimately abandoning the Tonto Basin by 1450 AD.

Numic (Southern Piaute) 

Period

1150 AD - Present

Located in northwestern Arizona and neighboring areas, the Southern Paiute belong to the Ute-Chemehuevi group of 

the Numic (Shoshonean) branch of the Uto-Aztecan stock. Primarily hunter-gatherers who later supplemented their 

subsistence by adopting Puebloan agricultural techniques.

Piman (Oíodham) Period

1500 AD - Present

Considered descendants of the Hohokam, the Piman occupy the Sonoran desert. They are agriculturalists, utilizing 

irrigation canals along the Gila and Salt Rivers and cultivating corn, beans and squash. Characteristic coiled 

basketry. 

Navaho/Apache Period

Mid 1500s - Present

The Navajo, of Athabascan stock, entered the Southwest as early as 1350 AD, and by the 17th century they centered 

in the areas between the San Juan and Little Colorado Rivers in northeastern Arizona. They raised sheep and also 

participated in raids, sometimes with the Apache, against neighboring Puebloans. Nomadic hunters and warriors, the 

Apache, a southern branch of the Athabascan linguistic stock, began moving into the southeastern portion of presentday Arizona in the mid-1500s as a result of pressures from Comanches in Texas and New Mexico.

Puebloan/Hopi Historic 

Period

1540 AD ñ Present

The Hopi language belongs to the Uto-Aztecan branch of the Aztec-Tanoan linguistic stock. The Hopi are considered 

decendants of the Ancestral Puebloans, and utilize advanced building and agricultural techniques, with elaborate 

social and ceremonial systems.

Spanish-Mexican Period

1540 AD ñ 1854 AD

In 1539 the Spanish explorer Fray Marcos de Niza traveled through Arizona, followed by a larger expedition under 

Coronado a year later. Settlement by the Spanish brought disease (smallpox in 1520 and measles in 1729) and 

general disruption and decline to the native populations. Establishment of numerous forts (presidios) and missions. 

Spanish rule was followed by incorporation of the area into the Mexican Republic after 1824. The loss of most of 

Northern Mexico (including present-day Arizona) to the United States during the Mexican-American War (1846-

1848) and the subsequent Gadsden Purchase in 1854, encompassing southern Arizona and the southernmost portion 

of New Mexico, marked the end of Hispanic control.

Anglo-American Period

1854 ñ Present

After the Mexican-American War, present-day Arizona was included in the New Mexico territory. In August 1861 

the Territory of Arizona was created and seceded from the Union; in 1863, the United States Government recognized 

the Territory of Arizona and established the present boundaries. Influx of Anglo-American settlers from 1865 to 

1900. Arizona attained statehood in 1912. 

*Dates are approximate.
Appendix G-4

Appendix G ñ Selected Cultural Resources 

Localities on BLM-Managed Lands

Field Office Locality Type Description

AZ Strip Paria Canyon and Paria 

Plateau

Prehistoric Large variety of sites including pithouses,

masonry features, habitation structures, 

granaries, storage cists, hearths, lithic scatters, 

campsites, rock art, rock shelters, and trails. 

The Paria Plateau Archeological District 

(constituting 70,000 acres and 416 sites) was 

determined eligible for the NRHP in 1976.

AZ Strip Moonshine Ridge Prehistoric Pinyon-juniper woodland with water sources 

at mesa footlands. High potential for 

prehistoric sites. 

AZ Strip Lost Spring Mountain Prehistoric Rock shelters, masonry features, and rock art 

associated with this location.

AZ Strip Johnson Spring ACEC Prehistoric Rock shelters and rock art.

AZ Strip Little Black Mountain Prehistoric Over 500 rock art designs on cliffs and 

boulders at the base of the mesa.

AZ Strip Mount Trumbull and the 

Uinkaret Plateau 

Prehistoric The Mount Trumbull Archeological District 

(18,250 acres and 72 sites) was determined 

eligible for the NRHP in 1976. The area was 

occupied by 2600 BC, based on split twig 

figurines found in canyon rock shelters, and 

by 1 AD, the fertile soils of the area were 

being exploited by the Ancestral Puebloans, 

who established habitation sites in the area. 

Evidence of Paiute occupation has been noted. 

Nampaweap, a significant rock art site, is a 

half-mile long site with thousands of rock art 

elements. Antelope Cave, an Archaic 

occupation with overlying Ancestral Puebloan 

occupation, located on the Uinkaret Plateau, 

was listed on the NRHP in 1975.

AZ Strip Old Spanish Trail Historic Historic overland trade route from New 

Mexico to California, established ca. 1829 by 

Antonio Armijo, a New Mexico trader. 

AZ Strip Temple Trail Historic Extends from St. George, Utah to sawmill 

sites on Mt. Trumbull. The sawmills and trail 

were established in 1872 by members of the 

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to 

transport lumber to their Temple in St. 

George.

AZ Strip Honeymoon Trail

(Old Arizona Road)

Historic Originating at the St. George Temple and 

established in 1871, this trail diverges from 

the Temple Trail at the Hurricane Cliffs near 

Antelope Spring, and into southern Arizona 

and northern Mexico.

AZ Strip Mount Trumbull Historic Livestock/farming center established in 1916. 

The Mount Trumbull Schoolhouse and the 

Mount Trumbull Sawmill Site are preserved 

as interpretive sites.

Kingman Joshua Tree Forest Prehistoric Large roasting pits near Grand Wash Cliffs.

Kingman Wright Creek Prehistoric Cohonina campsites and Prescott Pueblo sites.

Kingman Black Mountains Prehistoric Bighorn Cave and other rock shelters; 

polychrome pictographs and petroglyphs.
Appendix G-5

Field Office Locality Type Description

Kingman

Lake Havasu

Lower Colorado River Area Prehistoric Extensive (36 sq. mi.) macro-flaking industry, 

trails, petroglyphs and rock rings.

Kingman Cerbat Mountains Prehistoric

Historic

Extensive prehistoric and historic mining 

sites.

Kingman Carrow-Stephens Historical 

Area (ACEC)

Historic 19th century ranch site along Big Sandy Creek.

Kingman Beale-Mojave Road Historic Wagon road and old Indian trail. Stone cabins 

dating from the 1860ís, associated with 

prospecting Fort Mojave troops.

Lake Havasu Burro Creek Prehistoric Prescott Culture pueblos and camp sites; 

obsidian sources.

Safford San Pedro River Valley Prehistoric Paleoindian kill sites; Salado village sites.

Safford Gila Mountains Prehistoric Ancestral Puebloan sites in Bonita Creek 

Canyon.

Safford Turkey Creek Prehistoric Salado cliff dwelling established ca. 1300 

A.D. in the northern foothills of the Galiuro 

Mountains.

Tucson Lehner Mammoth Kill Site Prehistoric Kill site dating to 11,000 B.C, with significant 

Clovis component (9000 B.C.). A designated 

National Historic Landmark.

Tucson Fairbank Historic Townsite Historic Ghost town established in 1881 as an 

important railroad depot. Located within the 

San Pedro Riparian National Conservation 

Area (NCA), along the San Pedro River. 

Many structures associated with the town have 

been preserved.

Yuma Antelope Hill Prehistoric Prehistoric and historic petroglyphs on the 

volcanic basalt outcrop adjacent to the Gila 

River. This area was also used as a quarry 

for grinding stones. 

Yuma Sears Point Prehistoric

Historic

Prehistoric and historic petroglyphs adjacent 

to the Gila River. Abundant archeological 

features in this area, including sleeping 

circles, rock shelters, lithic and ceramic 

scatters, rock alignments, shrines/cairns, and 

geoglyphs.

Yuma Fisherman Intaglio Prehistoric One human figure and other designs (fish, 

sun) near the Plomosa Mountains, northeast of 

Quartzite, Arizona.
Appendix H-1

APPENDIX H ñ Summary of the Biological Evaluation

for the

BLM Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, 

and Air Quality Management

In accordance with Section 7(a)2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), Arizona State Office, requested formal consultation and conference for the BLM 

Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment for Fire, Fuels, and Air 

Quality Management. A Biological Evaluation was written that provided detailed analyses of all federally 

listed (endangered or threatened), proposed, and candidate species, as well as designated or proposed 

critical habitat, that may be affected by the proposed action. Development of this BE was guided by the 

Regulations on Interagency Cooperation (Section 7 of the ESA) in 50 CFR Part 402 and BLM Manual 

6840, and it followed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Arizona Ecological Services Office 

(AESO) outline as found in Attachment B of the Consultation Agreement for this project. All anticipated 

environmental effects, conservation actions, mitigation, and monitoring are disclosed in the BE. This 

included analysis of all direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action, including any interrelated and 

interdependent actions, on listed, proposed, or candidate species (as a group, considered as ìFederally 

protected speciesî), and designated or proposed critical habitat, from the analysis of the actions in the 

Statewide LUP Amendment and EA.

The planning area for the proposed Statewide LUP amendment includes all BLM-administered public 

lands within the state of Arizona and those portions of California administered by the Yuma and Lake 

Havasu Field Offices. Within the project area, 30 endangered species, 12 threatened species, one species 

proposed for listing, and five species that are candidates for listing inhabit either BLM-administered lands 

in Arizona or adjacent Federal, state, reservation, or private lands that could be affected by fire suppression 

or the proposed fire management activities (see Table 3.6 of this EA). These 48 Federally protected 

species can be grouped as follows: two amphibians, 10 birds, 14 fish, 12 flowering plants, eight mammals, 

and two reptiles. Based on discussions and analyses during informal consultation, determinations were 

made that the proposed action would have no effect on 25 species within the action area of the project (see 

Appendix B of the BE).

The proposed action analyzed in the BE was the amending of BLMís seven existing Land Use Plans 

(LUPs) to comply with current fire policy and guidance and to fully integrate fire and fuels management 

and direction found in the latest Department of Interior (DOI) and BLM resource program guidance for 

lands administered by BLM. As described in the EA for the project, the LUP Amendment would establish 

Desired Future Conditions, Land Use Allocations, and Management Actions, including Conservation 

Measures, and would amend existing LUP decisions concerning fire, fuels, and air quality management. 

The BE analyzed the effects to Federally protected species from each of the proposed treatment methods 

for fire and fuels management, including wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and mechanical, chemical, and 

biological vegetation treatments.

In addition to the proposed fire management activities, the BE analyzed the effects to Federally protected 

species from fire suppression activities within the planning area. Currently, fire suppression operations 

that occur on BLM-administered lands in or near sites occupied by federally listed, proposed, or candidate 

species, or designated or proposed critical habitat, require emergency consultation or conference to comply 

with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. The proposed action would include continued 
Appendix H-2

fire suppression operations in some locations that are not suitable for implementing the proposed treatment 

methods. In addition, fire suppression operations would occur during wildland fire use and prescribed fire 

activities. Under the proposed action, general and species-specific Conservation Measures would be 

implemented to the extent possible during fire suppression activities on BLM-administered lands. The 

implementation of these Conservation Measures and broad analysis of fire suppression activities would 

result in greater consistency statewide in minimizing potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to 

listed, proposed, and candidate species within the action area. This comprehensive analysis would also 

minimize or eliminate the future need for emergency consultation when fire suppression activities occur 

within the range of listed, proposed, or candidate species or their critical habitats.

Because of the planning-level of the analysis, no fieldwork was conducted to obtain site-level species 

information. Instead, the method used to develop the Conservation Measures and analyze the effects of the 

proposed action included 1) gathering information on species distribution, habitat and life history 

requirements, and response to wildfire, fire suppression, prescribed fire, and vegetation treatments from 

government and scientific references, internet sources, and species experts or resource managers in 

Federal, State, or non-governmental agencies; 2) generating GIS or other distribution maps for each 

species to assess the proximity of species locations and habitats to BLM-administered lands, and to 

determine the likelihood that fire suppression and the proposed fire management actions would affect those 

species; and 3) generating GIS maps depicting vegetation communities (GAP vegetation) and recent fire 

reports, land-ownership, historical/natural fire frequency regimes, and current condition of fire frequency 

regimes. The maps were then used in conjunction with the species and habitat information to consolidate 

and develop the Conservation Measures and to analyze the effects of the proposed action on the Federally 

listed, proposed, and candidate species within the action area.

The BE provides species-specific analyses for each of the 48 species that may be affected by fire suppression 

or the various treatment elements of the proposed action. Information for each species provided in the BE 

includes species life history, species status and distribution, affected habitat, and an analysis of the direct and 

indirect effects from fire suppression and each proposed fire management activity (wildland fire use, 

prescribed fire, and mechanical, biological, and chemical vegetation treatments). Potential effects to each 

Federally protected wildlife, fish, or plant species are similar to those listed in Section 4.9.2 of this EA, which 

generally describes direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on special status species. The BE also 

provides an analysis of the cumulative effects of actions on state and private lands that may affect each 

species. Finally, for each species and designated or proposed critical habitat, a determination of ìmay affect, 

and is likely to adversely affectî (LAA) or ìmay affect, but is not likely to adversely affect î (NLAA) was then 

concluded from the species-specific analysis. Table 4.7 of this EA provides a summary of the effects 

determination for each species and critical habitat analyzed in the BE.

In many cases, the determination of ìmay affect, and is likely t o adversely affectî stems from potential effects 

to the species from fire suppression operations, and not the proposed fire management actions. Because of the 

low tolerance of either the species or its habitat to fire use activities (wildland or prescribed fire use) or 

vegetation treatments, or a lack of accumulated hazardous fuels, preliminary projections by BLM estimated 

that the proposed fire management activities would not be implemented in habitats occupied by 28 of the 48 

Federally protected species or associated critical habitats analyzed in the BE. Thus, the proposed fire 

management actions would not directly or indirectly affect these species. At these locations, all wildfires 

would be fully suppressed, and thus any potential direct or indirect effects to the species would be from fire 

suppression operations. Conservation Measures (see Appendix D of this EA) would be implemented to the 

extent possible in sites occupied by Federally protected species to minimize or eliminate effects of 

suppression activities to the species, although effects of fire suppression operations would be balanced with 

the need to minimize effects of the wildfire itself and the need to protect firefighter and public safety. The 
Appendix H-3

Incident Commander would have the final decision-making authority on implementation of Conservation 

Measures during fire suppression operations. For the remaining 20 species, one or more of the proposed fire 

management actions may be implemented in habitats supporting the species to reduce accumulated hazardous 

fuels or restore forest or rangeland habitat conditions. Mandatory Conservation Measures (see Appendix D), 

including pre-project surveys, seasonal or distance restrictions, and minimizing human or surface-disturbing 

activities in or near occupied sites, would be implemented to minimize or eliminate any potential direct or 

indirect effects to the species. Final determinations for which fuels treatments, if any, would be implemented 

in or adjacent to habitats occupied by Federally protected species would be determined during pre-project 

planning and environmental analyses in Fire Management Plans and site-specific project level plans.

Through the species-specific analyses in the Biological Evaluation, the BLM determined that the proposed 

project (including both fire suppression operations and the proposed fire management actions) may affect, 

and is likely to adversely affect, the following 29 Federally listed species: Chiricahua leopard frog, cactus 

ferruginous pygmy-owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma clapper rail, bald eagle, Mexican spotted 

owl, desert pupfish, Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, Virgin River chub, woundfin, Yaqui chub, Yaqui 

topminnow, Little Colorado spinedace, loach minnow, spikedace, Arizona cliffrose, Brady pincushion

cactus, Holmgren milk-vetch, Huachuca water umbel, Kearneyís blue-star, Nichol turkís head cactus, 

Peebles Navajo cactus, Pima pineapple cactus, Jones cycladenia, Siler pincushion cactus, Hualapai 

Mexican vole, desert tortoise (Mojave population), and New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake; as well as 

designated critical habitats for the Mexican spotted owl, razorback sucker, Virgin River chub, woundfin, 

Little Colorado River spinedace, loach minnow, spikedace, Huachuca water umbel, and desert tortoise 

(Mojave population). Through formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act, as amended, the 

BLM requested that the USFWS prepare a Biological Opinion for these 29 species and nine critical 

habitats.

Additionally, the BLM determined that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect, the following 11 Federally listed species: California brown pelican, masked bobwhite, northern 

aplomado falcon, bonytail chub, beautiful shiner, Yaqui catfish, black-footed ferret, jaguar, lesser long-nosed bat, 

ocelot, and Sonoran pronghorn; as well as designated critical habitats for the bonytail chub, Yaqui chub, 

beautiful shiner, and Yaqui catfish. The BLM requested that the USFWS provide written concurrence with 

the determinations for these 11 species and four designated critical habitats. 

BLM policy in Manual Section 6840 requires BLM to confer on proposed species at the ìmay affectî 

level. The BLM determined that the proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, the 

proposed endangered Gila chub and the 10(j) population (equivalent to a ìproposedî status) of the 

Federally listed California condor, as well as proposed critical habitats for the Gila chub and cactus 

ferruginous pygmy-owl. Through formal conference under the Endangered Species Act, as amended, the 

BLM requested that the USFWS prepare a Conference Opinion for the these two species and two proposed 

critical habitats, such that the Conference Opinion could be converted to a Biological Opinion should the 

species be listed or should critical habitat be designated later. The BLM also requested written 

concurrence from the USFWS with a finding of ìmay affect, not likely to adversely affectî for the 10(j) 

population (equivalent to ìproposedî status) of the Federally listed Mexican gray wolf.

Finally, under the Memorandum of Agreement on Section 7 Programmatic Consultations (2000), the BLM 

requested recommendations from the USFWS based upon the effects analyses and determinations for the 

following five candidate species: relict leopard frog (NLAA), yellow-billed cuckoo (LAA), AcuÒa cactus 

(LAA), Fickeisen plains cactus (LAA), and black-tailed prairie dog (NLAA).
Glossary-1

GLOSSARY

AIR QUALITY The composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein; used most 

frequently in connection with "standards" of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations. Used 

instead of "air pollution" when referring to programs.

 

CANOPY The stratum containing the crowns of the tallest vegetation present, (living or dead) 

usually above 20 feet.

CATASTROPHIC (Severe wildland fire) Fire that burns more intensely than the natural or 

historical range of variability, thereby fundamentally changing the ecosystem, destroying 

communities and/or rare or threatened species/habitat, or causing unacceptable erosion.

CLEAN AIR ACT A federal law enacted to ensure that air quality standards are attained and 

maintained. Initially passed by Congress in 1963, it has been amended several times. 

CONDITION CLASS Based on coarse scale national data, Fire Condition Classes measure 

general wildfire risk as follows:

Condition Class 1. For the most part, fire regimes in this Fire Condition Class are within 

historical ranges. Vegetation composition and structures are intact. Thus, the risk of losing 

key ecosystem components from the occurrence of fire remains relatively low. 

Condition Class 2. Fire regimes on these lands have been moderately altered from their 

historical range by either increased or decreased fire frequency. 

Condition Class 3. Fire regimes on these lands have been significantly altered from their 

historical return interval. The risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire is high. Fire 

frequencies have departed from historical ranges by multiple return intervals. Vegetation 

composition, structure and diversity have been significantly altered. Consequently, these 

lands verge on the greatest risk of ecological collapse. (Cohesive Strategy, 2002, in draft)

COVER The area on the ground covered by the combined aerial parts of plants expressed as a 

percent of the total area. 

CRITICAL HABITAT (1) Specific areas within the habitat a species occupies at the time it is 

listed under the Endangered Species Act that have physical or biological features (a) that are 

essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management 

considerations or protection, and (2) specific areas outside the habitat a species occupies at the 

time it is listed that the Secretary of the Interior determines are essential for the species 

conservation.

CULTURAL RESOURCES Remains of human activity, occupation, or endeavor, reflected in 

districts, sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, works of art, architecture, and natural 

features that were important in past human events. Cultural resources consist of (1) physical 

remains, (2) areas where significant human events occurred, even though evidence of the events 

no longer remains, and (3) the environment immediately surrounding the actual resource.

DEPENDENT An animal species, which requires a certain vegetative community (or habitat) 

type during part of its life cycle.
Glossary-2

DESIRED PLANT COMMUNITY The kind, amount, and proportion of vegetation which best 

meets land use objectives for a particular site, and which must be within the siteís capability to 

produce through management or a combination of management and land treatment.

ECOSYSTEM An interacting system of organisms considered together with their environment.

ENDANGERED SPECIES Plant or animal species that are in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant part of their range.

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT of 1973 (as amended) Federal law to ensure that no federal 

action will jeopardize federally listed or proposed threatened and endangered species of plants 

and animals.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) A systematic environmental analysis of a sitespecific BLM activity used to determine whether the activity would have a significant effect on 

the quality of the environment and whether an environmental impact statement is required. 

 

ENVIRONMENT The complex surroundings of an item or area of interest, such as air, water, 

natural resources, and their physical conditions (temperature, humidity).

FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT (FLPMA) Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-570, 90 Stat. 2743, 43 USC 1701).

FIRE BEHAVIOR The manner in which a fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather, and 

topography. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT Activities required for the protection of burnable wildland values from 

fire and the use of prescribed fire to meet land management objectives.

FIRE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE Planned, measurable result desired from fire protection 

and use based on land management goals and objectives.

FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN Strategic plans that define a program to manage wildland fires 

based on an approved land management plan. The plan must address a full range of fire 

management activities that support ecosystem sustainability, values to be protected, protection of 

firefighter and public safety, public health, and environmental issues. The plan must be consistent 

with resource management objectives and the activities of the area.

FUEL All the dead and living material that will burn. This includes grasses, dead branches and 

pine needles on the ground, as well as standing live and dead trees. Also included are minerals 

near the surface, such as coal that will burn during a fire, and human-built structures.

FUELBREAK A wide strip with a low amount of fuel, usually grass, in a brush or wooded area 

to provide soil cover and serve as a line of fire defense.

FUEL TYPE An identifiable association of fuel elements of distinctive species, form, size, 

arrangement, or other characteristics that will cause a predictable rate of spread or resistance to 

control under specified weather conditions.

HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION Prioritize hazardous fuels reduction where the negative 

impacts of wildland fire are greatest.
Glossary-3

IGNITION METHOD The means by which a fire is ignited, such as hand-held drip torch, 

helitorch, and backpack propane tanks.

INVASIVE SPECIES Species that have been introduced into an environment in which they did 

not evolve and thus usually have no natural enemies to limit their reproduction and spread.

LAND USE PLAN A plan that provides management direction on future land uses.

LONG-TERM Ten to twenty years.

MITIGATION MEASURES Means taken to avoid, compensate for, rectify, or reduce the 

potential adverse impacts of an action.

MONITORING The orderly collection, analysis, and interpretation or resource data to evaluate 

progress toward meeting management objectives.

MOSAIC The intermingling of plant communities and their successional stages in such a manner 

as to give the impression of an interwoven design.

NOXIOUS WEED A plant that causes disease or has other adverse effects on man or his 

environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the United States 

and public health. Noxious weeds are designated and regulated by various State and Federal laws. 

In most cases, noxious weeds are also nonnative species.

PRESCRIBED BURNING The planned application of fire to wildland fuels in their natural or 

modified state, under specific conditions of fuels, weather, and other variables, to allow the fire to 

remain in a predetermined area and to achieve site-specific fire and resource management 

objectives.

PRESCRIPTION Measurable criteria that define the conditions under which a prescribed fire will 

be ignited, guide selection of appropriate management responses, and indicate other required 

actions. Prescription criteria may include safety, economic, public health, environmental, 

geographic, administrative, social, or legal considerations.

REHABILITATION Short term actions taken following fire to stabilize soils and encourage 

rapid establishment of vegetative cover.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN A multiple-use plan that provides management direction 

for all Federal resources. It is often supplemented by more detailed, site-specific management 

plans for a particular land use activity, such as livestock grazing.

RESTORATION A long-term landscape-based approach to changing the ecological health of the 

rangelands which requires implementation of a set of actions that promotes plant community 

diversity and structure to encourage communities to be more resilient to future disturbance and 

invasive species.

RIPARIAN The banks and adjacent areas of water bodies, watercourses, seeps, and springs. 

These waters provide soil moisture sufficiently in excess of the otherwise available locally to 

provide a moister habitat than that of contiguous flood plains and uplands.

SENSITIVE SPECIES A list of animal and plant species that were designated by the Nevada 

BLM State Director with the State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 
Glossary-4

Resources. It is BLM policy to give these species the same protection as federal candidate species 

in BLM Manual 6840.06.

SHORT-TERM Five years or less. 

SHRUB A woody perennial plant differing from a perennial herb by its persistent and woody 

stem; and from a tree by its low stature and habit of branching from the base.

SPECIES COMPOSITION A term relating the relative abundance of one plant species to 

another using a common measurement; the proportion (percentage) of various species in relation 

to the total on a given area.

SUPPRESSION All the work of extinguishing or confining a fire beginning with its discovery.

THREATENED SPECIES Plant or animal species that are not in danger of extinction but are likely 

to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range.

TREATMENT A procedure whose effect is to be measured and compared with the effect of 

other procedures. Examples include a fall burned prescribed fire, an unburned "control", or an 

area burned with a specific ignition method or pattern.

UNDERBURN A fire that consumes surface fuels but not trees and shrubs. 

VEGETATION COMMUNITY A kind of existing plant community with distinguishable 

characteristics described in terms of the present vegetation that dominates the aspect or 

physiognomy of the area.

VEGETATIVE REGENERATION Development of new aboveground plants from surviving 

plant parts, such as by sprouting from a root crown or rhizomes. Even if plants form their own 

root system, they are still genetically the same as the parent plant. 

VISUAL RESOURCES The visible physical features on a landscape (e.g., land, water, 

vegetation, animals, structures and other features).

WILDERNESS An area established by the Federal Government and administered either by the 

Forest Service, USDA or National Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, or Bureau of Land 

Management, in order to conserve its primeval character and influence for public enjoyment, 

under primitive conditions, in perpetuity.

WILDERNESS INVENTORY An evaluation of the public lands in the form of a written 

description and map showing those lands that meet the wilderness criteria as established under 

section 603(a) of FLPMA and section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, which will be referred to as 

wilderness study areas (WSAs). 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA) A roadless area or island that has been inventoried and 

found to have wilderness characteristics as described in section 603 of FLPMA and section 2(c) 

of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 891).

WILDFIRE A fire occurring on wildland that is not meeting management objectives and thus 

requires a suppression response. 
Glossary-5

WILDLAND An area in which development is essentially non-existent, except for roads, railroads, 

powerlines, and similar transportation facilities. Structures, if any, are widely scattered.

WILDLAND FIRE Any fire occurring on the wildlands, regardless of ignition source, damages, 

or benefits.

WILDLAND FIRE USE Wildland fire used to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and, 

when possible, allowed to function in its natural ecological role. Use of fire will be based on 

approved Fire Management Plans and will follow specific prescriptions contained in operational 

plans.
Reference-1

REFERENCES

Arizona Game and Fish Departmentís (AGFD) Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) website. 2003. 

http://www.gf.state.az.us/wildlife_conservation/edits/hdms_abstracts.html. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department Laws and Rules 2002-2003 Edition, Reprinted from Arizona Revised 

Statutes, 2002 Edition and Arizona Administrative Code, Supplement 02-3. Link is: 

http://www.azgfd.com/pdfs/inside_azgfd/all_azgfd_laws.pdf

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2002. Hunt Arizona 2002 Edition ñ Survey, Harvest and Hunt Data 

for Big and Small Game. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2001. Wildlife 2006ñ The Arizona Game and Fish Departmentís 

Wildlife Management Program Strategic Plan for the years 2001-2006. Approved by the AGFD 

Commission January 19, 2001. 91 pp. Available at www.azgfd.com. 

Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise Team. 1996. Management Plan for the Sonoran Desert Population 

of the Desert Tortoise in Arizona. December 1996. 55 pp.

Arno, S.F. and R.H. Wakimoto. 1988. Fire Ecology of Vegetation Common to Wildland Homesites. Pp. 

118ñ123 In: Fisher, W.C.; Arno, S.F. compilers, Protecting people and homes form wildfire in the 

Interior West: proceedings of the symposium and workshop, General Technical Report INT-251. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Brooks, M.L. 2002. Peak fire temperatures and effects on annual plants in the Mojave Desert. Ecological 

Applications 12: 1088-1102. 

Brooks, M.L. and D.A. Pyke 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the Deserts of North America. pages 1-14 

in K.E.M. Galley and T.P. Wilson (eds). Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: the Role of Fire 

in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire 

Ecology, Prevention, and Management. Misc. Publications No. 11, Tall Timber Research Station, 

Tallahassee, FL.

Brown, D.E. 1982a. Biotic Communities of the American Southwestó United States and Mexico. Desert 

Plants 4: (1ñ4) 1ñ342. 

Brown, D.E. 1982b. Semidesert Grassland. Pp. 123ñ131 In: Brown, D.E., ed., Biotic communities of the 

American Southwestó United State and Mexico. Desert Plant 4 (1ñ4): 1ñ342. 

Brown, D.E. 1994. Biotic Communities, Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico.. 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, J.K. 2000. Chapter 9: Ecological Principles, Shifting Fire Regimes and Management 

Considerations. Pp. 185ñ203 In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in 

ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen.Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 p.

Bureau of Land Management. 1982. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Grazing 

Management Program for the Lower Gila North EIS Area. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management Yuma, Mohave, Yavapai, and Maricopa Counties, Phoenix District, Arizona.
Reference-2

Bureau of Land Management. 1983. Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lower Gila North Resource Area, Arizona

Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix 

District, Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1985. Final Yuma District Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma District, 

Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1988. Proposed Phoenix Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix 

District, Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1989. Final Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (Goldwater 

Amendment). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lower Gila South Resource Area, 

Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1990. Proposed Arizona Strip District Resource Management Plan and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona 

Strip District, Arizona. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1991. Safford District Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Safford 

District Office, Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Kingman Resource Area Proposed Resource Management Plan and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kingman 

Resource Area, Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Planning Update, Amendment and Environmental Assessment to 

the Lower Gila North and South Mangement Plans. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Lower Gila Resource Area, Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Rangeland Reform '94, Final Environmental Impact Statement.

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office. 2003. About BLM Arizona. URLs: 

www.az.blm.gov/fr_info.htm.; www.az.blm.gov/wildarea.htm; www.az.blm.gov/fr_wwdo.htm. 

Caldwell, T.G., D.W. Johnson, W.W. Miller, and R.G. Qualla. Forest floor carbon and nitrogen losses 

due to prescribed fire. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:262-267. 

Clark, B. 2001. Fire Effects Guide. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. http://fire.fws.gov/ifcc/monitor/EFGuide/soils.htm. 

Cunningham, S.C., L.M. Monroe, L. Kirkendall, and C.L. Ticer. 2001. Effects of the catastrophic Lone 

Fire on low, medium, and high mobility wildlife species. Arizona Game and Fish Department Research 

Branch Technical Guidance Bulletin No. 5, Phoenix. 51 p.

Delmonte, John. 1985. Origins of Materials and Processes. Technomic Publishing Company, Inc. 

Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Reference-3

Desert Tortoise Council. 1994. Guidelines for handling desert tortoises during construction projects. 

Desert Tortoise Council, San Bernardino, California.

Duck, T.A., T.C. Esque, and T.J. Hughes. 1995. Fighting wildfire in desert tortoise habitat: 

considerations for land managers. Proc. Desert Tortoise Counc. Symp. 1994:58-67. 

Esque, T.C., C.R. Schwalbe, L.A. DeFalco, R.B. Duncan, and T.J. Hughes. 2003. Effects of desert 

wildfires on desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and other small vertebrates. The Southwestern 

Naturalist 48(1):103-111. 

Hendricks. D.M. 1985. Arizona Soils. (ed.) Haney, R.A. College of Agriculture, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, Arizona. http://digital.library.arizona.edu/southwest/azso/index.html. 

Howey, L.D. and G.B. Ruyle. 2002. Noxious Weeds I: Noxious Weeds: A Disaster Looking for a Place to 

Happen in Arizona!! URL: http://rangelandswest.org/az/weeds/noxiousweeds1.html, viewed 25 April 

2003. 

Howey, L.D. and G.B. Ruyle. 2002. Noxious Weeds II: What Can You Do To Stop a Disaster in 

Arizona? URL: http://rangelandswest.org/az/weeds/noxiousweeds2.html, viewed 25 April 2003. Lyon, 

L.J., H.S. Crawford, E. Czuhai, R.L. Fredriksen, R.F. Harlow, L.J. Metz, and H.A. Pearson. 1978. 

Effects of fire on fauna: A state-of-knowledge review. Gen. Tech. Report WO-6. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 22 p.

Macadam, A. 1989. Effects of prescribed fire on forest soils. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Smithers, B.C. 

Research report 89001-PR.

Marsh, D. 2002. The Status of Water Quality in Arizona ñ 2002: Volume 1. Arizonaís Integrated 305(b) 

Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Phoenix, AZ.

McAuliffe, J.R. 1995. The Aftermath of Wildfire in the Sonoran Desert. The Sonoran Quarterly 49: 4ñ8.

McNabb, D.H., and Swanson, F.J. 1990. Chapter 14: Effects of fire on soil erosion. In: Natural and 

prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. (eds.) Walstad, J.D., et.al. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University Press.

Mullins, Gary W., et. al. 2001. Communicatorís Guide: Wildland Fire. Boise, ID: National Interagency 

Fire Center (USDA/USDI).

National Interagency Fire Center, 2003. URL: www.nifc.gov.

Pase, C.P. and D.E. Brown. 1982. Interior Chaparral. Pp. 95ñ99 In: Brown, D.E., ed., Biotic communities 

of the American Southwestó United State and Mexico. Desert Plant 4 (1ñ4): 1ñ342. 

Paysen, T.E., R.J. Ansley, J.K. Brown, G.J. Gottffried, S.M. Haase, M.G. Harrington, M.G. Narog, S.S. 

Sackett, R.C.Wilson. 2000. Pp. 121ñ159 In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. 2000. Wildland 

fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen.Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 p.
Reference-4

Peek, J.M. 1986. A Review of Wildlife Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Pellant, M., D.A. Pyke, P. Shaver, J.E. Herrick. 2000. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland health. 

Technical Reference 1734-6, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and 

Technology Center, Information and Communication Group, Denver, CO, 118 pp. 

Pyne, S.J., P.L. Andrews, and R.D. Laven. 1996 Introduction to Wildland Fire. New York: Wiley.

Rogers, G.F. and J. Steele. 1981. Sonoran Desert Fire Ecology. Pp. 15ñ19 In: Stokes, M.A. and 

Dietereich, J.H., Tech. Coord., Proceedings of Fire History Workshop. US Forest Service General 

Technical Report RM-81. 

Silberman, J. PhD. 2003. The Importance of Fishing and Hunting. Economic Data on Fishing and 

Hunting for the State of Arizona and for Each Arizona County. Prepared by Arizona State University 

School of Management for the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

For copy of report follow link:

http://www.azgfd.com/pdfs/wildlife_conservation/FISHING_HUNTING%20Report.pdf

Smith, Jim. June 2002. Protecting Archeological Sites with Prescribed Fire. In The Effects of Fire and 

Heat on Obsidian, edited by Janine M. Loyd, et al. Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory.

Smith, J.K., ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 83 p.

Soil Science Society of America. 2003. Glossary of Soil Science Terms. Madison, Wisconsin. 

http://www.soils.org/sssagloss/search.html. 

Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil Taxonomy. 2nd Edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Agriculture Handbook No. 436.

Solomon, Madeline. June 2002. Fire and Glass: Effects of Prescribed Burning on Obsidian Hydration 

Bands. In The Effects of Fire and Heat on Obsidian, edited by Janine M. Loyd, et al. Northwest 

Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory.

Swetnam, T.W. and C.H. Baisan. 1996. Historical Fire Regime Patterns in the Southwestern United States 

Since AD 1700. Pp. 11ñ32 In: Allen, C.D., ed., Fire effects in southewestern forests: Proceedings of the 

second La Mesa fire symposium. General Technical Report RB-GTR-286, USDA, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Turner, R.M. 1982. Great Basin Desertscrub. Pp. 145ñ155 In: Brown, D.E., ed., Biotic communities of 

the American Southwestó United State and Mexico. Desert Plant 4 (1ñ4): 1ñ342. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary Files 1, 2, 3. 

U.S. Forest Service. 2003. A strategic assessment of forest biomass and fuel reduction treatments in 

western states. http://www.fs.fed.us/research/infocenter.html. 

U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. January 2000. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, Effects 

of Fire on Fauna, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-Volume 1.
Reference-5

U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. January 2000. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, Effects 

of Fire on Flora, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-Volume 2.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Arizona Ecological Services website. 2003.

http://www.arizonaes.fws.gov

Vallentine, J.F., 1980. Range Development And Improvements, Second Edition. Brigham Young 

University Press, Provo, Ut. 545 Pp.

Wohlegmuth, P.M., J.L. Beyers, and S.G. Conard. 1999. Postfire hillslope erosion in Southern California 

Chaparral: A case study of prescribed fire as a sediment management tool. In: Proceedings of the 

Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy: Bottom Lines. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report PSW-GTR-173, 332, pp. 269-276. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture.

 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 2004 — 573-085 / 43018 Region No. 8
UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Arizona State Office

222 North Central Ave.

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2203

__________

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

PRIORITY MAIL

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEAPRTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

PERMIT NO. G-76